I Harry S. Mrnmari 352-53 GOVT. 4 . 1 1 3 : 952-53/ IP <-• . 2 to. " Pi THE GEORGE AND HELEN LADD LIBRARY BATES COLLEGE LEWISTON, MAINE ri.-, \wes OUf9 ?| i read on. "f-.^'resor. WN BATES COLLEGE LIBRARY BATES COLLEGE LiBHARY LEWISTON. MAINE \i-.AO 53/ G.X- PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES PUBLIC PAPERS OF THE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES Harry S. Truman Containing the Public MessageSj Speeches and Statements of the President JANUARY I, 1952, TO JANUARY 20, 1953 J952-53 ^-../.-V^,, BATES COLLEGF ubrary LEWISTON. MAINl UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON I I 966 \ / ' -, i 2 J V6 PUBLISHED BY THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION S*^ * <> For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $9 (cloth) FOREWORD THE IMPORTANCE OF this series lies in the extraordinary character of the office of President of the United States. A President's written and spoken words can command national and international attention if he has within him the power to attract and hold that attention. It is partly through the use of this power that leadership arises, events are molded, and administrations take their shape. It is this power, quite as much as powers written into the Constitu- tion, that gives to the papers of Presidents their peculiar and revealing importance. PREFACE IN THIS VOLUME are gathered most of the public messages and statements of the 33d President of the United States that were released by the White House during the period January 1, 1952— January 20, 1953. Similar volumes are available covering 1945-1951, the adminis- trations of Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, and the first year of President Johnson. Volumes covering 1965 and 1966 are under preparation. The series was begun in 1957 in response to a recommendation of the National Historical Publications Commission. An extensive com- pilation of the messages and papers of the Presidents, covering the period 1789 to 1897, was assembled by James D. Richardson and pub- lished under congressional authority between 1896 and 1899. Since that time various private compilations were issued, but there was no uniform, systematic publication comparable to the Congressional Record or the United States Supreme Court Reports. Many Presi- dential papers could be found only in mimeographed White House releases or as reported in the press. The National Historical Publica- tions Commission therefore recommended the establishment of an official series in which Presidential writings and utterances of a public nature could be made promptly available. The Commission's recommendation was incorporated in regulations of the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register issued under section 6 of the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 306). The Commit- tee's regulations, establishing the series and providing for the coverage of prior years, are reprinted at page 124 1 as "Appendix D." VII Preface CONTENT AND ARRANGEMENT The text of this book is based on Presidential materials issued during the period as White House releases and on transcripts of news con- ferences. A list of White House releases from which final selections were made is published at page 1217 as "Appendix A." The full text of President Truman's news conferences is here published for the first time, since direct quotation of the President's replies usually was not authorized. Proclamations, Executive orders, and similar documents required by law to be published in the Federal Register and Code of Federal Regulations are not repeated. Instead, they are listed by number and subject under the heading "Appendix B" at page 1232. The President is required by statute to transmit numerous reports to Congress. Those transmitted during the period covered by this volume are listed at page 1240 as "Appendix C." The items published in this volume are presented in chronological order, rather than being grouped in classes. Most needs for a classified arrangement are met by the subject index. For example, a reader interested in veto messages will find them listed in the index under the heading "veto messages." The dates shown at the end of item headings are White House release dates. In instances where the date of the document differs from the release date that fact is shown in brackets immediately following the heading. Other editorial devices, such as text notes, footnotes, and cross references, have been supplied where needed for purposes of clarity. Remarks or addresses were delivered in Washington, D.C., unless otherwise indicated. Similarly, statements, messages, and letters were issued from the White House in Washington unless otherwise indicated. VIII Preface Original source materials, where available, have been used to protect against substantive errors in transcription. In maintaining the integrity of the text, valuable assistance was furnished by Dr. Philip C. Brooks, Philip D. Lagerquist, Jerry N. Hess, and Harry Clark, Jr., of the Truman Library. The planning and publication of this series is under the direction of David C. Eberhart of the Office of the Federal Register. The editor of the present volume was Warren R. Reid, assisted by Mildred B. Berry. Frank H. Mortimer of the Government Printing Office developed the typography and design. Robert H. Bahmer Archivist of the United States Lawson B. Knott, Jr. Administrator of General Services October 1966 IX 55-672—66 2 CONTENTS Page FOREWORD V PREFACE VII LIST OF ITEMS XIII PUBLIC PAPERS OF HARRY S. TRUMAN I Appendix A — White House Press Releases 1217 Appendix B — Presidential Documents Published in the Federal Register 1232 Appendix C — Presidential Reports to the Congress 1240 Appendix D — Rules Governing This Publication 1241 INDEX I243 XI LIST OF ITEMS Page i Statement by the President on Reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. January 2, 1952 1 2 The President's News Conference of January 3, 1952 2 Statement by the President Concerning the Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation 3 3 Statement by the President Upon Signing Executive Order Establishing the Missouri Basin Survey Commission. Jan- uary 3, 1952 7 4 Remarks of Welcome to Prime Minister Churchill at the Washington National Airport. January 5, 1952 9 5 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. January g, 1952 9 6 Joint Statement Following Discussions With Prime Minister Churchill. January 9, 1952 17 7 The President's News Conference of January 10, 1952 19 8 Special Message to the Senate Transmitting Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey. January 10, 1952 25 9 Statement by the President on Civil Defense. January 12, 1952 25 10 Message to the Congress Transmitting First Report on Inclu- sion of Escape Clauses in Trade Agreements. January 14, 1952 27 11 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorgani- zation Plan 1 of 1952: Bureau of Internal Revenue. Janu- ary 14, 1952 27 XIII List of Items Page 12 Special Message to the Congress on Synthetic Rubber. Janu- ary 14, 1952 31 13 Message to the Congress Transmitting the First Annual Re- port of the National Science Foundation. January 15, 1952 34 14 Statement by the President on the 69th Anniversary of the Civil Service System. January 16, 1952 35 15 Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report. January 16, 1952 35 16 Joint Statement Following Discussions With Prime Minister Churchill Concerning the Atlantic Command. January 18, 1952 54 17 The President's News Conference on the Budget. Janu- ary 19, 1952 55 18 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1953. January 21, 1952 63 19 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Urging Action on Mine Safety Legislation. January 22, 1952 117 20 Letter to Eric Johnston Requesting Him To Serve as Chair- man of the International Development Advisory Board. January 23, 1952 118 21 The President's News Conference of January 24, 1952 118 22 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the Labor Disputes in the Aluminum Industry. January 26, 1952 123 23 Special Message to the Congress Urging Action on the St. Lawrence Seaway. January 28, 1952 125 24 Remarks Upon Presenting Medals of Honor to M. Sgt. Hubert L. Lee and Sgt. Joseph C. Rodriguez, USA. Janu- ary 29, 1952 129 xiv List of Items Page 25 Letter to Admiral McCormick Designating Him Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. January 30, 1952 130 26 The President's News Conference of January 31, 1952 130 27 Letter to Committee Chairmen on Determining To Increase Defense Assistance to France, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. February 5, 1952 136 28 Letter to the Secretary of State of New Hampshire Concern- ing the Presidential Preference Primary. February 5, 1952 137 29 Remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Dinner. February 5> *952 J37 30 Statement by the President on the Death of King George VI. February 6, 1952 139 31 The President's News Conference of February 7, 1952 140 32 Statement by the President Upon Appointing the Members of the Missouri Basin Survey Commission. February 9, 1952 144 33 Special Message to the Congress Urging Extension and Strengthening of the Defense Production Act. February 11, 1952 145 34 Remarks at Dinner Honoring Michael V. DiSalle. February 13, 1952 151 35 The President's News Conference of February 14, 1952 152 . . Statement by the President Following Conference With New- bold Morris, Special Assistant to the Attorney General 152 36 Special Message to the Congress Requesting that the Special Assistant to the Attorney General Be Given the Power of Subpoena. February 14, 1952 156 37 Special Message to the Congress Reporting on the Labor Dis- putes in the Nonferrous Metals Industry. February 14, 1952 157 xv List of Items Page 38 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting Draft of an Emergency Powers Contin- uation Act. February 19, 1952 160 39 Statement by the President Commending the "Crusade for Christian Citizenship." February 20, 1952 161 40 Letter to James H. Doolittle Upon Establishing the President's Airport Commission. February 20, 1952 161 41 Memorandum Concerning the President's Airport Com- mission. February 20, 1952 163 42 Remarks to a group of Methodist Ministers From Illinois. February 20, 1952 163 43 Remarks to the Winners of the Fifth Annual Voice of Democracy Contest. February 20, 1952 164 44 The President's News Conference of February 20, 1952 164 45 Remarks at a Masonic Breakfast. February 21, 1952 167 46 Remarks to a Group From the Navajo Tribal Council. February 21, 1952 170 47 Statement by the President on the Fourth Anniversary of Communist Control in Czechoslovakia. February 25, 1952 170 48 Remarks Welcoming Secretaries Acheson and Snyder on Their Return From the NATO Conference in Lisbon. February 27, 1952 171 49 The President's News Conference of February 28, 1952 171 50 Remarks Recorded for Broadcast on the Occasion of the Opening of the Red Cross Campaign. February 28, 1952 175 51 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on the United States Contribution to the U.N. Children's Emergency Fund. February 29, 1952 176 XVI List of Items Page 52 Remarks to the Winners of the nth Annual Science Talent Search. February 29, 1952 177 53 Letter to the Chairman, Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Urging Action on Reorgani- zation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. March 4, 1952 177 54 Address Broadcast From the Voice of America Floating Radio Transmitter Courier. March 4, 1952 178 55 Special Message to the Congress on the Mutual Security Program. March 6, 1952 179 56 Remarks to Members of a Catholic University Dramatic Group Leaving for Korea. March 6, 1952 191 57 Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Mutual Security Program. March 6, 1952 191 58 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the Labor Dispute in the Petroleum Industry. March 6, 1952 196 59 Letter to the President of the Senate Urging Action on Reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. March % 1952 197 60 Memorandum Directing Agency Heads To Decline To Comply With a Request for Information by the Chairman, Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. March 7, 1952 199 61 Message to the Congress Transmitting First Report on the Mutual Security Program. March 7, 1952 200 62 Message to the Convention of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association on Federal Power Policy. March 13. *952 200 63 Address in New York City at the Convention of the Colum- bia Scholastic Press Association. March 15, 1952 203 XVII List of Items Page 64 The President's News Conference at Key West. March 20, 1952 206 65 Special Message to the Congress on Aid for Refugees and Displaced Persons. March 24, 1952 209 66 Letter to Committee Chairmen Concerning a Program in Aid of Fugitives From Communism. March 24, 1952 215 67 Letter to Committee Chairmen Enumerating Continuing Powers, Functions, and Responsibilities of the Director for Mutual Security. March 27, 1952 216 68 Special Message to the Congress on Absentee Voting by Members of the Armed Forces. March 28, 1952 217 69 Address at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. March 29, 1952 220 70 Letter Accepting Resignation of Charles E. Wilson as Director of Defense Mobilization. March 30, 1952 226 71 Remarks at a Reception by the Democratic National Com- mittee. March 30, 1952 227 72 Statement by the President on the 10th Anniversary of the In- stitute of Inter-American Affairs. March 31, 1952 228 73 Remarks of Welcome to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands at the Washington National Airport. April 2, 1952 228 74 Toasts of the President and Queen Juliana. April 2, 1952 229 75 The President's News Conference of April 3, 1952 230 76 Letter to Secretary Acheson on Requests for Information on the Administration of the Loyalty-Security Program. April 3> J952 235 77 Remarks at Ceremony Commemorating the Third Anniver- sary of the Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. April 4, 1952 237 XVIII List of hems Page 78 Remarks on Accepting a Carillon Presented to the People of the United States by the People of the Netherlands. April 4> *952 238 79 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Urging Prompt Action on the Emergency Powers Continuation Act. April 7, 1952 240 80 Veto of Bill Relating to the Greenfields Division of the Sun River Irrigation Project, Montana. April 8, 1952 241 81 Address Before the National Conference on International Economic and Social Development. April 8, 1952 243 82 Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Need for Government Operation of the Steel Mills. April 8, 1952 246 83 Special Message to the Congress Reporting on the Situation in the Steel Industry. April 9, 1952 250 84 Special Message to the Congress Summarizing the New Re- organization Plans. April 10, 1952 251 85 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganiza- tion Plan 2 of 1952. April 10, 1952 254 86 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganiza- tion Plan 3 of 1952. April 10, 1952 255 87 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorgani- zation Plan 4 of 1952. April 10, 1952 257 88 The President's News Conference of April 10, 1952 258 89 Statement by the President on the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Leonardo da Vinci. April 11, 1952 262 90 Remarks at the Presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor to 1st Lt. Lloyd Burke, USA, Cpl. Rodolfo Her- nandez, USA, and T. Sgt. Harold E. Wilson, USMC. April 11, 1952 263 XIX List of Items Page 91 Memorandum Requesting Agency Heads To Cooperate in an Inquiry by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. April 12, 1952 263 92 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on Highway Safety. April 14, 1952 263 93 Remarks to a Group of Displaced Persons. April 14, 1952 264 94 Remarks on Receiving Members of the Council of the Organization of American States. April 14, 1952 265 95 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Treaty of Peace With Japan and Related Security Pacts. April 15, 1952 265 96 Letter to the Secretary of Defense on Voting by Servicemen. April 16, 1952 266 97 Remarks in Omaha on the Floods in the Upper Missouri and Mississippi Valleys. April 16, 1952 267 98 The President's News Conference of April 17, 1952 269 99 Remarks Upon Receiving a Gift for the White House Pre- sented by the French Ambassador. April 18, 1952 278 100 Remarks to Members of the Associated Church Press. April 18, 1952 278 101 Address at the Dedication of the New AMVETS Head- quarters in Washington. April 18, 1952 279 102 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. April 19, 1952 282 103 Letter to the President of the Senate Concerning Government Operation of the Nation's Steel Mills. April 21, 1952 283 104 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting the Consti- tution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. April 22, 1952 285 xx List of Items Page 105 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Continuation of Aid to the Netherlands. April 23, 1952 288 106 Message to the Congress Transmitting the First Annual Report of the Federal Civil Defense Administration. April 24, 1952 289 107 The President's News Conference of April 24, 1952 290 108 Letter to Senator Maybank on Vacation Leave Privileges of Federal Employees. April 25, 1952 296 109 Letter to Senator McKellar on the Need for Restoring Funds for Flood Control. April 25, 1952 297 no Letter to C. S. Jones in Response to Questions on the Steel Situation. April 27, 1952 299 in Statement by the President on the Termination of the State of War With Japan. April 28, 1952 302 112 Statement by the President and Message Upon Appointing Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. April 28, 1952 302 113 Statement by the President Upon Appointing Gen. Mark W. Clark To Succeed General Ridgway. April 28, 1952 303 114 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorgani- zation Plan 5 of 1952. May 1, 1952 303 115 The President's News Conference of May 1, 1952 306 116 Telegrams to Industry Leaders and to the Union President Calling a Meeting on the Steel Strike. May 2, 1952 309 117 Address at the 70th Anniversary Meeting of the National Civil Service League. May 2, 1952 310 118 Remarks at a Meeting With Steel Industry and Labor Leaders. May 3, 1952 315 XXI List of Items Page 119 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation on a National System of Flood Disaster Insurance. May 5, 1952 317 120 Remarks at the 21st Annual Banquet of the National Housing Conference. May 6, 1952 319 121 Statement by the President on General Ridgway's Korean Armistice Proposal. May 7, 1952 321 122 Letter to Henry H. Fowler on His Assumption of the Post of Administrator of the Defense Production Administration. May 7, 1952 322 123 The President's News Conference of May 8, 1952 323 . . . Statement Made by the President Giving His Reflections on Life in the Presidency 324 124 Letter to Committee Chairmen Urging Action on Bills To Encourage Voting by Servicemen. May 12, 1952 327 125 Remarks at a Dinner for the Members of Congress Given by the Civil Air Patrol. May 14, 1952 328 126 Address at the Sixth Annual Honor Awards Program of the Department of Agriculture. May 15, 1952 331 127 The President's News Conference of May 15, 1952 334 128 Remarks at the Armed Forces Dinner. May 16, 1952 339 129 Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Ameri- cans for Democratic Action. May 17, 1952 341 130 Remarks at a Luncheon in the Cadet Dining Hall at West Point. May 20, 1952 347 131 Address at the Sesquicentennial Convocation of the United States Military Academy. May 20, 1952 348 xxn List of Items Page 132 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Awarded to General Ridgway. May 20, 1952 353 133 Remarks to the Winner of the Teacher of the Year Award. May 21, 1952 354 134 Remarks at the Dedication of a Memorial Plaque Honoring Pvt. Leslie Coffelt. May 21, 1952 354 135 Remarks to Members of the National Advisory Committee of the Veterans Administration Voluntary Services. May 21, 1952 355 136 The President's News Conference of May 22, 1952 359 137 Message to the Congress Transmitting 68th Annual Report of the U.S. Civil Service Commission. May 23, 1952 364 138 Special Message to the Congress Upon Signing Bills Relating to Veterans' Benefits. May 23, 1952 365 139 Statement by the President: Memorial Day. May 23, 1952 367 140 Memorandum on Proposed Bills Dealing With Treaties and Executive Agreements. May 23, 1952 367 141 Letter to the Secretary of the Army Directing Him To Terminate Control of the Railroads. May 23, 1952 368 142 Remarks in Annapolis at a Luncheon in the Midshipmen's Mess Hall. May 24, 1952 368 143 Address Before the Electric Consumers Conference. May 26, 1952 370 144 Address at a Dinner of the Jewish National Fund. May 26, 1952 374 145 Remarks to Members of the American Action Committee Against Mass Deportations in Romania. May 28, 1952 378 XXIII List of Items Page 146 Veto of Bill Concerning Title to Offshore Lands. May 29, x952 379 147 Letter to Senator Maybank on the Atomic Energy Program. May 29, 1952 384 148 Letter to the President of the Senate on Proposed Amend- ments to the Defense Production Act. May 29, 1952 385 149 The President's News Conference of May 29, 1952 389 150 Address Before the President's Conference on Industrial Safety. June 2, 1952 392 151 Special Message to the Senate Transmitting a Convention on Relations With Germany, and Related Documents. June 2, 1952 395 152 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Awarded to General Eisenhower. June 2, 1952 398 153 Remarks Upon Receiving a Plaque Presented by the Capital Press Club. June 4, 1952 399 154 Remarks to Jimmy Carrick, Winner of "The Kid of the Year" Award. June 4, 1952 399 155 Letter to the Chairman, Air Coordinating Committee, Transmitting Report of the Airport Commission. June 5, 1952 399 156 The President's News Conference of June 5, 1952 400 157 Remarks at a Breakfast of the 35th Division Association, Springfield, Missouri. June 7, 1952 403 158 Address in Springfield at the 32d Reunion of the 35th Divi- sion Association. June 7, 1952 404 159 Letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on the Steel Strike. June 9, 1952 408 xxiv List of Items Page 160 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Colum- bia. June 9, 1952 409 161 Special Message to the Congress on the Steel Strike. June 10, 1952 410 162 Memorandum Transmitting an Exchange of Correspondence Between the President and Senator Russell Regarding the Communist Prisoners Interned on Koje Island. June 1 1, 1952 414 163 Letter to Senator Russell on the Prison Camps on Koje Island. June 11, 1952 414 164 Remarks to Members of the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants From Europe. June 11, 1952 415 165 Remarks to Members of the United States Attorneys Asso- ciation. June 11, 1952 415 166 The President's News Conference of June 12, 1952 416 167 Letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Cochrane on the Need for Increas- ing Social Security Benefits. June 13, 1952 419 168 Remarks to Members of the International Society of Christian Endeavor. June 13, 1952 420 169 Commencement Address at Howard University. June 13, 1952 420 170 Address in Groton, Conn., at the Keel Laying of the First Atomic Energy Submarine. June 14, 1952 425 171 Remarks at a Luncheon at the Officers' Club, U.S. Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut. June 14, 1952 429 172 Remarks to Members of "Task Force Smith." June 16, 1952 430 xxv List of Items Page 173 Remarks Upon Receiving a Medal Presented by Students From William Chrisman High School, Independence, Mis- souri. June 17, 1952 430 174 Remarks to Members of the Eighth Annual Institute on the Preservation and Administration of Archives. June 18, 1952 431 175 The President's News Conference of June 19, 1952 432 176 Remarks to the Delegates to the 22d National 4-H Club Camp. June 19, 1952 436 177 Letter to the Attorney General on the Sale of the SS United States. June 20, 1952 436 178 Letter to Senator Russell on the Military Construction Bill. June 23, 1952 438 179 Letter in Response to Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. June 23, 1952 438 180 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to Italy. June 24, 1952 439 181 Remarks Upon Presenting the Young American Medal for Bravery and the Young American Medal for Service. June 24, 1952 440 182 Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality. June 25, 1952 441 183 Remarks to the Washington Student Citizenship Seminar. June 25, 1952 447 184 Remarks to the Members of the National YMCA and Gov- ernment Assembly. June 26, 1952 448 185 Statement by the President on the Need for Deferring the Drafting of Certain Apprentices and Farm Laborers. June 26, 1952 449 XXVI List of Items Page 1 86 Letter to the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, Ap- proving a Manpower Policy for Agricultural Labor. June 26, 1952 450 187 Letter to the Director, Selective Service System, on Deferment of Farm Workers. June 26, 1952 450 188 Remarks to Members of the Board of the International Fed- eration of Business and Professional Women. June 27, 1952 451 189 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Proj- ect. July 1, 1952 451 190 Statement by the President on the Defense Production Act Amendments. July 1, 1952 453 191 Statement by the President on the Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. July 1, 1952 454 192 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. July 1, 1952 455 193 Rear Platform Remarks in Newport, Arkansas. July 1, 1952 456 194 Address in Arkansas at the Dedication of the Norfork and Bull Shoals Dams. July 2, 1952 456 195 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Arkansas. July 2, 1952 462 196 Message to the Congress Transmitting Sixth Annual Report on U.S. Participation in the United Nations. July 3, 1952 464 197 The President's News Conference of July 3, 1952 467 . . . Statement by the President on the Steel Strike 467 . . . Statement by the President on the United Nations 467 XXVII List of Items Page 198 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. July 3, 1952 471 199 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Providing for Water Research and Development. July 4, 1952 472 200 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on Appropriations for Atomic Energy. July 5, 1952 473 201 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Independent Offices Appropriation Act. July 6, 1952 473 202 Statement by the President on the Ground Observer Corps' "Operation Skywatch." July 12, 1952 474 203 Letter to Members of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security Requesting a Study of Foreign Trade Policies. July 13, 1952 475 204 Statement by the President Upon Signing the "Fair-Trade Laws" Bill. July 14, 1952 477 205 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Supplemental Appropriation Act. July 15, 1952 478 206 Statement by the President Upon Signing an Amendment to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act. July 16, 1952 480 207 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to Payments to Certain Employees of the House of Representa- tives. July 16, 1952 481 208 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill Relating to Employees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Com- pany. July 17, 1952 482 209 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bills Relating to the Delaware River Port Authority. July 17, 1952 482 210 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to Agricultural Price Supports. July 18, 1952 483 XXVIII List of hems Page 211 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Amending the Merchant Marine Act. July 18, 1952 484 212 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill for the Establishment of a Veterans Administration Facility at Fort Logan, Colo- rado. July 18, 1952 485 213 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Social Security Act Amendments. July 18, 1952 486 214 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill Authorizing the Post- master General To Lease Quarters for Post Office Purposes. July 19, 1952 488 215 Special Message to the Congress: The President's Midyear Economic Report. July 19, 1952 488 216 Statement by the President on the Settlement of the Steel Strike. July 24, 1952 501 217 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to Denmark. July 25, 1952 501 218 Address in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention. July 26, 1952 503 219 Statement by the President on the Death of Senator Brien McMahon. July 28, 1952 509 220 Remarks to the Delegates of Girls Nation. August 6, 1952 509 221 The President's News Conference of August 7, 1952 510 . . . Statement by the President on the Drought in Kentucky and Tennessee 510 . . . Statement by the President on the Importance of Voting 510 222 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission, on the Administration of the Federal Employee Security Programs. August 8, 1952 513 XXIX List of Items Page 223 Memorandum on the Federal Employee Security Programs. August 8, 1952 514 224 Remarks Following a Meeting at the White House With Governor Stevenson and Senator Sparkman. August 12, 1952 515 225 Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Tax Benefits of the Shipping Industry. August 13, 1952 515 226 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on the Tax Benefits of the Shipping Industry. August 13, 1952 516 227 Message to Dwight D. Eisenhower Inviting Him to a Luncheon and Briefing at the White House. August 14, 1952 517 228 The President's News Conference of August 14, 1952 518 229 Letter to Junius B. Wood on the Minerva Clock and Other Antique White House Furnishings. August 14, 1952 520 230 Remarks to Delegates to a CIO-PAC Rally. August 15, 1952 521 231 Statement by the President Reviewing the 1953 Budget. August 19, 1952 522 232 Letter to Capt. Charles G. Ewing on the Repatriation of Prisoners of War in Korea. August 20, 1952 529 233 The President's News Conference of August 21, 1952 530 234 Remarks to a Group of Exchange Teachers From Great Britain, France, and Canada. August 21, 1952 533 235 Statement by the President: The Jewish New Year. August 22,1952 533 236 Remarks to a Group of Students From Kansas High Schools. August 22, 1952 533 237 Statement by the President: Labor Day. August 28, 1952 534 XXX List of Items Page 238 The President's News Conference of August 28, 1952 535 239 Special Message to the Congress on the Trade Agreement With Venezuela. August 29, 1952 537 240 Rear Platform Remarks in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Septem- ber 1, 1952 541 241 Labor Day Address in Milwaukee. September 1, 1952 543 242 Rear Platform Remarks in Ohio and West Virginia. Sep- tember 2, 1952 548 243 Remarks to the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. September 4, 1952 559 244 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Order Establishing a Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. Septem- ber 4, 1952 563 245 Letter to Henry H. Fowler Asking Him To Serve as Director, Office of Defense Mobilization. September 5, 1952 564 246 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Concerning Air Service Between the United States and Mexico. Septem- ber 8, 1952 565 247 The President's News Conference of September 11, 1952 566 . . . Statement by the President Concerning Republican Control of the Press 566 248 Remarks at a Ceremony Marking the Issuance of the "Women in the Armed Services" Commemorative Stamp. September 11, 1952 569 249 Address in Philadelphia at the American Hospital Associa- tion Convention. September 16, 1952 570 250 Remarks to the Delegates to the Theater Owners Convention. September 17, 1952 576 XXXI List of hems Page 251 Address Before the National Conference on Citizenship. September 17, 1952 576 252 Remarks at the Signing of the Pakistan Wheat Loan Docu- ments. September 17, 1952 580 253 The President's News Conference of September 18, 1952 581 . . . Statement by the President Concerning a Report on Forced Labor in the Soviet Union 581 254 Statement by the President on the Death of Joseph Short. September 18, 1952 584 255 Remarks in New London at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. September 20, 1952 584 256 Remarks to a Group of Actors and Officials of the Motion Picture Industry of India. September 22, 1952 586 257 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce Directing Him To Head a Mission To Survey European Industrial Progress. Septem- ber 24, 1952 586 258 The President's News Conference of September 25, 1952 587 259 Remarks to the National Citizens' Committee on United Na- tions Day. September 26, 1952 590 260 Remarks to Representatives of the National Council of Churches. September 26, 1952 591 261 Remarks to Delegates to the International Conference on Agricultural and Cooperative Credit. September 26, 1952 592 262 Remarks at a Luncheon With Members of the National Sym- phony Orchestra. September 26, 1952 593 263 Letter to the Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Request- ing Him To Make an Economic Study. September 27, 1952 594 XXXII List of Items Page 264 Radio and Television Remarks Opening the Nation's Com- munity Chest Campaign. September 27, 1952 595 265 Statement by the President on the Death of David K. Niles. September 28, 1952 596 266 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana. September 29, 1952 596 267 A Recorded Interview With the President. September 29, 1952 622 268 Rear Platform Remarks in Montana. September 30, 1952 626 269 Address at Tiber Dam, Montana. September 30, 1952 645 270 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Montana and Idaho. October 1, 1952 647 271 Address in Montana at the Dedication of the Hungry Horse Dam. October 1, 1952 659 272 Address in Spokane in the Auditorium of the Eagles Lodge. October 1, 1952 665 273 Address on a Radio Program Sponsored by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Campaign Committee. October 1, 1952 671 274 Rear Platform Remarks in Washington. October 2, 1952 673 275 Address in Seattle at the Auditorium of the Fraternal Order of Eagles. October 2, 1952 684 276 Address in Tacoma at a Rally in the Armory. October 2, 1952 687 277 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Oregon and California. October 3, 1952 692 278 Address at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. October 4, 1952 701 XXXIII 55-672—66 3 List of Items Page 279 Address in the Oakland Auditorium. October 4, 1952 707 280 Rear Platform Remarks in Utah and Colorado. October 6, 1952 712 281 Address at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. Octo- ber 6, 1952 720 282 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Colorado. October 7, 1952 725 283 Address at Colorado Springs. October 7, 1952 737 284 Rear Platform Remarks in Iowa and Missouri. October 8, 1952 741 285 Address in Shenandoah, Iowa. October 8, 1952 750 286 Rear Platform Remarks in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. October 9, 1952 756 287 Address in the Public Square in Cleveland. October 9, 1952 765 288 Address at Memorial Hall in Buffalo. October 9, 1952 770 289 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New York. October 10, 1952 775 290 Address in Harlem, New York, Upon Receiving the Franklin Roosevelt Award. October 11, 1952 797 291 Address at a Columbus Day Dinner in New York City. October n, 1952 802 292 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. October 16, 1952 808 293 Address in Hartford, Connecticut. October 16, 1952 829 294 Address at the Armory in Manchester, New Hampshire. October 16, 1952 833 XXXIV List of Items Page 295 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New Hamp- shire and Massachusetts. October 17, 1952 838 296 Address at Symphony Hall in Boston, Massachusetts. Octo- ber 17, 1952 854 297 Address Prepared for Delivery Before the Mobilization Con- ference of the National Jewish Welfare Board. October 17, 1952 859 298 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Massachu- setts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. October 18, 1952 863 299 Address at the City Hall in Providence, Rhode Island. October 18, 1952 882 300 Address at the Eastern Parkway Arena in Brooklyn, New York. October 18, 1952 886 301 Statement by the President on the Republican Position on Immigration. October 20, 1952 891 302 Statement by the President Concerning the Import Quota on Shelled Filberts. October 20, 1952 892 303 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. October 21, 1952 892 304 Address at Reyburn Plaza in Philadelphia. October 21, 1952 906 305 Address in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. October 21, 1952 910 306 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Pennsylvania. October 22, 1952 914 307 Address at the Syria Mosque in Pittsburgh. October 22, 1952 926 308 Rear Platform Remarks in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. October 23, 1952 931 xxxv List of Items Page 309 Letter in Observance of the 34th Anniversary of the Independ- ence of Czechoslovakia. October 25, 1952 944 310 Statement by the President on the Decision To Withdraw U.S. Forces From Korea, 1947-1949. October 27, 1952 945 311 Rear Platform Remarks in Ohio and Indiana. October 27, 1952 950 312 Address at the Municipal Auditorium, Gary, Indiana. Octo- ber 27, 1952 954 313 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Minnesota. October 28, 1952 959 314 Address at the Municipal Auditorium, Hibbing, Minnesota. October 28, 1952 971 315 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Iowa and Illinois. October 29, 1952 978 316 Address at the Hotel Sherman in Chicago. October 29, 1952 988 317 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Michigan. October 30, 1952 994 318 Address at the State Fair Coliseum in Detroit. October 30, 1952 1008 319 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Ohio. Octo- ber 31, 1952 1012 320 Address at the Music Hall in Cincinnati. October 31, 1952 1022 321 Rear Platform Remarks in Indiana and Illinois. Novem- ber 1, 1952 1028 322 Address at the Kiel Auditorium in St. Louis. November 1, 1952 1039 323 Further Statement by the President on the Decision To With- draw U.S. Forces From Korea, 1947-1949. November 2, 1952 1045 XXXVI List of Items Page 324 Radio and Television Remarks on Election Eve. Novem- ber 3, 1952 1046 325 Statement by the President on the Election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States. November 5, 1952 1048 326 Telegram to the President-Elect. November 5, 1952 1048 327 Statement by the President on the Death of Representative Adolph J. Sabath of Illinois. November 6, 1952 1049 328 Letter Directing the Air Coordinating Committee To Make Plans for Observing the 50th Anniversary of the Wright Brothers Flight. November 12, 1952 1049 329 Remarks to the Directors of the National Newspaper Pub- lishers Association. November 14, 1952 1050 330 Remarks on Laying the Cornerstone of the New Temple of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. November 16, 1952 1050 331 Joint Statement Following a Meeting With the President- Elect. November 18, 1952 1051 332 Message to the Congress Transmitting Second Report on the Mutual Security Program. November 18, 1952 1052 333 Address Before the Association of Military Surgeons. No- vember 19, 1952 1052 334 The President's News Conference of November 20, 1952 1057 335 Remarks at a Meeting of an Orientation Course Conducted by the CIA. November 21, 1952 1060 336 Statement by the President on the Death of William Green. November 21, 1952 1062 337 Remarks in Alexandria, Va., at the Cornerstone Laying of the Westminster Presbyterian Church. November 23, 1952 1062 XXXVII List of Items Page 338 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission, on the Need for Maintaining Rosters of Former Mobilization Per- sonnel. November 25, 1952 1064 339 Remarks to a Group of Business Paper Editors. November 25, 1952 1065 340 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Pre- sented to Admiral Souers. December 1, 1952 1066 341 Letter to the Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency, on the New Wage Agreement in the Coal Industry. Decem- ber 4, 1952 1066 342 The President's News Conference of December 4, 1952 1069 343 Statement by the President on German Steps Toward Accept- ance of the European Defense Community Agreements. December 6, 1952 1072 344 Statement by the President on the Need for "Operation Sky- watch." December 7, 1952 1072 345 The President's News Conference of December 11, 1952 1073 346 Letter to the Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency, on the Wage Stabilization Board. December 13, 1952 1076 347 Address at the National Archives Dedicating the New Shrine for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. December 15, 1952 1077 348 Letter to Michael V. DiSalle on His Appointment as Admin- istrator, Economic Stabilization Agency. December 16, 1952 1080 349 Address Before the Alumni Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. December 16, 1952 1080 350 Remarks to the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers. December 17, 1952 1084 XXXVIII List of Items Page 351 Remarks at the Wright Memorial Dinner of the Aero Club of Washington. December 17, 1952 1084 352 Statement by the President on the Report of the Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. December 18, 1952 1087 353 The President's News Conference of December 18, 1952 1087 354 Address at the National War College. December 19, 1952 1090 355 Letter to the Chairman, National Security Resources Board, Concerning the Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. December 22, 1952 1096 356 Remarks Upon Lighting the National Community Christ- mas Tree. December 24, 1952 1097 357 Letter to Stephen J. Spingarn on Ethics in Government. December 29, 1952 1098 358 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. December 30, 1952 1099 359 The President's News Conference of December 31, 1952 1105 360 Statement by the President on the Restriction on Imports of Dairy Products. December 31, 1952 1108 361 Letter Recommending Living Expense Deductions for the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. January 2, 1953 1108 362 Memorandum on the Secretary of State's Recommendation in the Case of John Carter Vincent. January 3, 1953 11 10 363 Letter in Response to the Latest Reports From the Bureau of the Census. January 5, 1953 11 12 364 Statement by the President on Report "Whom We Shall Welcome" by the Commission on Immigration and Natural- ization. January 5, 1953 n 12 xxxix List of Items Page 365 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Proclamation Enlarging the Olympic National Park. January 6, 1953 11 13 366 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. January 7, 1953 1114 367 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1954. January 9, 1953 1128 368 Statement by the President on the Change in the Public Debt During His Term of Office. January 9, 1953 1164 369 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Volume One of the Report of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. January 9, 1953 1166 370 Letter to the President-Elect Forwarding Draft Order "Estab- lishing Special Personnel Procedures in the Interest of the National Defense." January 9, 1953 1167 371 Letter Accepting Resignation of Robert A. Lovett as Secre- tary of Defense. January 9, 1953 1168 372 Letter to the Attorney General on the Grand Jury Investi- gation of the International Oil Cartels. January 12, 1953 1168 373 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Natural- ization. January 13, 1953 1169 374 Letter Accepting Resignation of Charles Sawyer as Secre- tary of Commerce. January 13, 1953 1170 375 Letter in Response to Report by the Chairman, National Security Resources Board. January 13, 1953 1171 376 Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report. January 14, 1953 1171 377 The President's Last News Conference. January 15, 1953 1189 XL List of Items Page . . . Statement by the President on the Presidential Press Con- ference n89 . . . Statement by the President Commending the Members of the Armed Forces 1190 378 The President's Farewell Address to the American People. January 15, 1953 II97 379 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Order Setting Aside Submerged Lands of the Continental Shelf as a Naval Petroleum Reserve. January 16, 1953 1202 380 Letter Accepting Resignation of Dean Acheson as Secretary of State. January 16, 1953 1203 381 Letter Accepting Resignation of John W. Snyder as Secre- tary of the Treasury. January 16, 1953 1203 382 Letter Accepting Resignation of James P. McGranery as the Attorney General. January 16, 1953 1204 383 Letter Accepting Resignation of Jesse M. Donaldson as Postmaster General. January 16, 1953 1204 384 Letter Accepting Resignation of Oscar Chapman as Secre- tary of the Interior. January 16, 1953 1205 385 Letter Accepting Resignation of Charles F. Brannan as Secretary of Agriculture. January 16, 1953 1206 386 Letter Accepting Resignation of Maurice J. Tobin as Secretary of Labor. January 16, 1953 1206 387 Memorandum Concerning the Organization of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation, Inc. January 17, 1953 1207 388 Special Message to the Congress on the Nation's Land and Water Resources. January 19, 1953 1208 XLI 55-672—66 4 List of Items Page 389 Letter to the President-Elect Transmitting Report of the President's Committee on Government Contract Com- pliance. January 19, 1953 1216 390 Letter to the President, American Federation of Government Employees, on the 70th Anniversary of the Merit System. January 20, 1953 1216 XLII Harry S. Truman l952~53 i Statement by the President on Reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. January 2, 1952 AFTER extensive study of the matter with the Secretary of the Treasury, I have decided to institute a sweeping reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This reorganization is part of a program to prevent improper conduct in the public service, to protect the Government from the insidious influence peddlers and favor seek- ers, and to expose and punish any wrong- doers. It is one of a series of actions I am taking to insure honesty, integrity, and fair- ness in the conduct of all Government business. It is another step to promote responsible and efficient management in the executive branch. Some of the changes basic to the reorga- nization will require a reorganization plan. To accomplish this I propose to submit such a plan to the Congress when it reconvenes. Other of the changes can be accomplished by administrative action. I have directed the Secretary of the Treasury to proceed with these immediately with a view to placing the full plan in effect as soon as possible. In addition to the reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, I expect to take further administrative action and to make other recommendations to the Congress to insure complete integrity in the operations of the Government. Some persons in the Bureau of Internal Revenue have betrayed the public trust re- posed in them. The revelation of that fact has come as a shock to all decent citizens. I have directed that every effort be made to expose and punish such persons wherever they may be found. I intend to have the highest standards of integrity maintained in the Federal Service. Those standards are high now and have been observed faithfully by the overwhelming majority of our public servants. We must rid the Government of any em- ployees who misuse their official positions for personal gain. Equally important, we must correct any conditions which make it possible for such practices to exist. I be- lieve that this reorganization will be of great help in achieving both of these pur- poses. The following major changes in the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue will be made by this reorganization: 1. The offices of the 64 collectors of In- ternal Revenue will be abolished. 2. Only one officer, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, will be appointed by the President by and with the advice and con- sent of the Senate. All other positions will be filled through civil service. 3. All operating functions of the Bureau will be placed in not more than 25 district offices, each headed by a District Commis- sioner. All field activities in each district will be under the jurisdiction of the District Commissioner, and he alone will be respon- sible to the Commissioner in Washington. The present complex system under which more than 200 separate field officers report directly to Washington will thus be abol- ished. Taxpayers hereafter can look to the District Commissioner or his local repre- sentative as the official in complete charge of all Federal tax matters in the district. 4. A strong, vigorous inspection service will be established and will be made com- pletely independent of the rest of the Bureau. Through a comprehensive system of audits and inspections, this service will keep opera- tions and management of the Bureau under continual scrutiny and appraisal. It will have the responsibility, coupled with full authority, of detecting and investigating any irregularities. It will be alert to the prac- tices of the influence peddlers and fixers. There will be an inspection office in each district under a Chief Inspector who will be independent of the District Commissioner. In view of its importance, the nation- [i] Jan. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents wide direction of the inspection service will be the sole responsibility of one of the three Assistant Commissioners of Internal Revenue. 5. Bureau headquarters at Washington will be reorganized and its operating func- tions further decentralized. Three Assist- ant Commissioners will replace the present intricate structure of supervision. One will be in charge of the inspection service. An- other will be in charge of field operations. A third will be responsible for technical mat- ters such as preparation and issuance of tax forms, regulations, and rulings. 6. More adequate salaries will be paid to officials responsible for administering the Revenue Service. We must try to obtain and hold the services of the best qualified persons in this highly intricate and technical field of Government. The Bureau of Internal Revenue has grown from a small organization to one employing about 57,000 persons. The greater part of this growth occurred between 1 94 1 and 1947. In those war years the rap- idly expanding Bureau had to work under a century's accumulation of laws, administra- tive divisions, and obsolete procedures. While much has been done to simplify the Bureau's operation since the war, more fundamental changes are needed now. In assessing the current problems of the Revenue Service, we should not overlook its high achievements in the face of the tre- mendous burdens rapidly piled upon it in recent years. Never in the history of this or any other country has a government organi- zation been required to deal with such mounting technical responsibilities. The manner in which the Revenue Service has met its tremendous duties is a tribute to the thousands of its loyal and faithful servants. The reorganization is intended to preserve the best of that tradition and mold it admin- istratively to achieve even higher goals. It is based on the recognition that the very sol- vency of our country depends in part upon the integrity of the Revenue Service. The greatly increased tax collections neces- sary to support our defense effort are placing more and more heavy responsibilities upon the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This fact alone makes it especially urgent that we give the Bureau the best organization and man- agement that can be obtained. We must move ahead rapidly in accomplishing this. I, therefore, hope that the Congress will give speedy approval to the reorganization plan which I am submitting. The new, streamlined Revenue Service will have clear, direct channels of responsi- bility and supervision from the lowest field office to the Commissioner. It will be thoroughly inspected and controlled from top to bottom to assure complete integrity and fidelity in its operations. I am confident that it will give the taxpaying public the soundest and most efficient tax system that we can provide. It is my intention to make the Bureau of Internal Revenue a blue ribbon civil service career organization. I intend to make it a service in which all of us can place genuine confidence and have justified pride. I hope that I will have the full support of the Con- gress and of the public in bringing this about. note: See also Items 11, 53, 59. 2 The President's News Conference of January 3, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] For your information, I shall de- liver the State of the Union Message on Wednesday, January 9, at 12:3c.1 That is the day after the day that Congress meets. I 1 See Item 5. Harry S. Truman, igp Jan. 3 [2] have been in touch with the Vice President and the Speaker and that day — and hour — is agreeable to them. 1 will try to answer questions, if you have any. [2.] Q. Mr. President, would you be agreeable, sir, to have the public visit the White House before you and the First Lady move in? the president. No. [Laughter] I would not. The White House, after we move in and get settled, will be open to the public on nearly every day at the regular hour, and the public will have ample chance to see it. We don't expect to have any housewarm- ing, except when we move in. We will heat it up then and see how it works. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, after you set up the commission to study the health needs of the Nation,2 Dr. Cline, the president of the American Medical Association, had quite a lot to say about it. He opposed the idea and said that he thought you were misusing emergency funds by setting up this com- mission. I wonder if you have any com- ment? the president. He is entided to think anything he wants to, but I have got a little statement that I want to read you about it, which covers it. [Reading] "I established the Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation because I want to see to it that the health of our people is protected and that sick people re- ceive adequate medical care." Which they are not doing now. "The purpose of the Commission is to study the facts and to give us the recommen- dations of high-calibre professional and lay persons. Their findings will help the public to get rid of the confusion that has grown up as a result of the bitter attacks upon any constructive measures I have supported to bring adequate health care to all our people. The fact that we lost over 500 million man- days of work due to illness in the last fiscal 2 See 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 307. year is evidence enough that we must keep fighting the drain on our strength due to sickness and disease. "I appointed as Chairman of the Com- mission, Dr. Paul Magnuson, an eminent surgeon whose reputation for integrity and devotion to the public service are absolutely unquestionable. Every one of the other 14 members of the Commission was recom- mended to me by Dr. Magnuson. I would not have asked the doctor to serve on the Commission under any other arrangement. Every one of the 14 members had indicated a willingness to serve prior to the public an- nouncement of the establishment of the Commission. "The sole purpose of my Commission was to get representative opinions from both the medical profession and the lay public on the best means for alleviating the suffering of millions of Americans. The only con- dition on the selection of the Commission was a willingness on the part of each mem- ber to approach each problem with an open mind and weigh the facts and to suggest solutions to the problems. The Commis- sion will operate in this framework and will have its first meeting in Washington next week." 3 3 A White House press release of January 15, 1952, stated in part, "The President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, under the Chairman- ship of Dr. Magnuson, completed its first session at noon today. The day and a half meeting was devoted largely to a discussion of the assignment given the commission by the President, which is to make a critical study of the total health require- ments of the Nation, and to recommend courses of action to meet those needs. . . . "The position of the American Medical Asso- ciation was discussed at length by the commission, who felt that inasmuch as the other members of the commission did not officially represent any group, it is understandable that the American Med- ical Association did not wish to be officially repre- sented. Therefore, it was agreed that another doctor should be added to the commission who was familiar with the policies of the American Medical Association but who would not officially represent that Association as a body." See also Item 369. [2] Jan. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Mr. President, the doctor who de- clined to serve is Dr. Gundersen.4 Is that the doctor you refer to there, when you said the doctor? the president. Dr. Magnuson is the only one I refer to in here. Every time I said doctor, it was Dr. Magnuson. Q. But you said all 14 had agreed to serve? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Fifteen, including Dr. Magnuson. the president. Yes, that's correct. [4.] Q. There is a report in the morning papers, sir, that Attorney General McGrath has signified in writing to you his desire to be relieved of the post of Attorney General? the president. Well now, I want Q. Can't hear — can't hear the question. the president. He asked me about Mr. McGrath. In response to all questions regarding con- tinued drastic action — including "Is Mc- Grath resigning?" — I propose the follow- ing: I am not going to answer that question. [Laughter] There have been so many rumors, I can't possibly answer all of them. I made an announcement yesterday regard- ing the reorganization of the Bureau of In- ternal Revenue.5 When I am ready, I will make further announcements. Until then I have nothing to say. Q. You said there have been so many rumors. What rumors, Mr. President? the president. There have been so many rumors made I can't possibly spend my time answering those rumors. And it seems to me that announcements of that sort ought to come from the President of the United States. And when I get ready to make any announcements, I have always told you, and told you in plenty of time so that you can get it in the next day's paper, or that day's paper, if we have a morning press confer- ence. Q. Mr. President, you said that you would not answer questions on people resigning. Does that bar questions of that sort on McGrath? the president. That bars questions that have any bearing on that subject at all. Q. Mr. President, there is a rumor, but not about Mr. McGrath, and that is you will accede to the longstanding desire of Mr. Symington to get out of Government service very soon? 6 the president. He wants to get out, and I think probably some time this month I will accept his resignation. Q. This month, sir? the president. Yes. Q. Also a report that there was some- thing curious about the rather speedy ac- ceptance of the resignation of his number two man, Mr. Bukowski.7 Do you have any comment on that? the president. It was accepted strictly at his request, and on the date on which he requested that it be accepted. [5.] Q. Mr. President, there is another one of these rumors, on Capitol Hill, that you have this time deferred the State De- partment and Labor Department — have you asked them not to negotiate a new labor agreement with Mexico pending congres- sional action on your message to Congress on the migratory labor? the president. I made an agreement with the President of Mexico last year, that the Congress would act in regard to that labor agreement, and unless the Congress does act, there will be no agreement with Mexico. Q. You said you have an agreement with the President of Mexico? the president. Yes, I had an agreement with the President of Mexico that the mat- *On December 30, 1951, Dr. Gunnar Gundersen of LaCrosse, Wis., member of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, requested that his name be removed from the list of appointees to the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. 5 See Item 1. 6W. Stuart Symington resigned as Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation on Feb- ruary 15, 1952. 7 Peter I. Bukowski resigned as Deputy Admin- istrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation on December 31, 195 1. Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 3 [2] ter would be submitted to the Congress for action, and unless they take the necessary action, there will be no negotiations with the Government of Mexico. Q. Mr. President, I was so busy writing "there will be no negotiations." About what, sir? [Laughter] the president. About the labor situa- tion Q. The migratory the president. down in the South- west. [6.] Q. Mr. President, Representative Hays 8 told us yesterday that you had told him you hoped to be able to announce by February 6th your political plans for this year. Would you be able to enlighten us further? the president. I am very sorry I can't give you any enlightenment on that. I will tell you when I am ready. Q. Well, Mr. President, did you give Mr. McKinney 9 to understand that you would tell him by the first of March whether you would run or not? the president. No, I did not. I have given nobody to understand anything about any date with regard to that. I know what I am going to do, as I told you before, and when I get ready I will announce it. [7.] Q. Sir, there are reports that — in certain parts of your administration — that the pending visit of Mr. Churchill is less than welcome, that it is considered a nuisance, or an imposition. Have you any comment? the president. Mr. Churchill is very wel- come. And I will extend to him as hearty a welcome as I know how to give to any visi- tor. There are a number of important things that we can discuss, and discuss profitably to both of us. And I am glad he is coming. I don't know where all such foolish things as that originate. Q. Can you give us a rundown on some of the economic things or political things 8 Representative Wayne L. Hays of Ohio. 9 Frank E. McKinney, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. you might be discussing? the president. I have a complete agenda, and it is not to be made public. We will issue a communique after the conferences are over, and you will be informed on exactly what took place.10 [8.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us something about your conference this morn- ing with the Bolivian Ambassador on the tin situation? the president. He just talked with me about tin. I listened. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Kefauver said today that he would like to get an in- vitation to have a heart-to-heart talk with you about politics. Is he likely to get such an invitation? the president. I will talk with anybody — any Senator or any Member of the House of Representatives — on politics or any other subject they want to talk about. [10.] Q. Mr. President, have you added subjects to the agenda for the Churchill talks, or as a visitor has he any agenda, any specific things which you wish to talk to him about? the president. Whenever I go to a con- ference, or whenever I anticipate a confer- ence, I always have an agenda. And I have one now. [11.] Q. Mr. President, Chairman Doughton 1X said today that he thought your plan to reorganize the Internal Revenue Bu- reau might encounter what he called "much opposition." What do you think of that? the president. I don't think much of it. [Laughter] I think it's a good plan, and I think it ought to go through. [12.] Q. Mr. President, did I understand that you would probably accept Mr. Syming- ton's resignation toward the end of the month? the president. I didn't say toward the end of the month. I said some time this month. 10 See Items 6, 16. n Representative Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. [2] Jan. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Some time. Does that indicate a change in the RFC policy on this tin situa- tion? the president. Has nothing to do with any policy. Mr. Symington has been trying to get out of the Government for a year and a half. Q. Do you have a successor for him, sir, to that RFC post? the president. I will make the announce- ment at the proper time. [13.] Q. Mr. President, had the Bureau of Internal Revenue reorganization plan been on your desk for some time before the announcement was made? the president. Yes. It had been under consideration ever since the Hoover report.12 There has been some violent opposition to it in the Congress, and we have been trying to overcome that opposition. We finally, I think, have gotten around to the point where an acceptable program is in the making and will go down to the Congress, and I am sure that they will approve. Q. It antedates, then, the King13 sub- committee hearings? the president. No, I told you it origi- nated with the Hoover report, some 2^ years ago, and has been under consideration ever since. Q. What was the question? Joseph H. Short (Secretary to the Presi- dent) : He said antedate, Mr. President. the president. What's that? Mr. Short: He said did it antedate the King hearings. the president. Oh, yes. I thought he said did it date from the King subcommittee hearings. It dates from the time of the Hoover report. 12 The report on the Department of the Treasury by the Commission on Organization of the Execu- tive Branch of the Government is dated March 1949 (Government Printing Office, 1949, 37 pp.)- President Herbert Hoover was Chairman of the Commission which was terminated on June 12, 1949. 13 Representative Cecil R. King of California, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Administration of Internal Revenue Laws. Q. Mr. President, what was the nature of the opposition? They objected to your not making the collectors political appointees? the president. They want to keep them political appointees, that's what the difficulty is, and they have raised a good deal of fuss, some of them have, when we fired some of these fellows. Q. Could you say who had objected to it? the president. No, I didn't name any names. Q. Mr. President, are these Democrats who opposed, or Republicans? the president. Both. Q. Mr. President, weren't quite a number of the people fired, civil service people? the president. No, I don't think they were. There may have been some civil service people that were fired, but most of them were collectors, who are appointees of the President. [14.] Q. This is the last question on this the president. That's all right. [Laugh- ter] Q. do you see any hope of an early solution of the tin question deadlock? the president. I can't answer the ques- tion. Q. You can't answer the question? the president. I can't answer the ques- tion, I said. [15.] Q. Mr. President, is there any- thing you can tell us about Korea? the president. No, that is not to be com- mented on at the present time. We are in the same position, almost, as we were at the last press conference,14 and I can make no comment on it. [16.] Q. Mr. President, you said you spoke to the Speaker about this date for delivery of the State of the Union Message. Did he take up any matters with you — did he report to you on the political situation? the president. No. We just discussed the Message on the State of the Union. I will "See 1951 volume, this series, Item 300 [15]. Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 3 [3] see him as soon as he gets back here. Then we will talk politics, or business, or what- ever the Congress wants to talk about. Q. Mr. President, do you have the dates on those other two messages? the president. No, I am not in a position to give you the dates on them yet. [17.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to say why you wouldn't give us some indi- cation of the nature of the agenda of the talks with Mr. Churchill? the president. Because that is my busi- ness. [18.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if — whether or not Senator Kefauver has got in touch with you, or you with him, on the possibility of his having a little talk on the political situation? the president. I haven't heard from the Senator. He knows how to make an ap- pointment. Mr. Connelly15 is always on the telephone to answer those things. [19.] Mr. Short: Mr. President, most of the people who were discharged were civil service employees — most of them were. the president. I see. Mr. Short informs me that most of the people who were dis- charged in the Internal Revenue Bureau were civil service people, but there were sev- eral top ones that were Presidential ap- pointees that were discharged too. [20.] Q. Mr. President, can I repeat some questions that were asked before — I missed a press conference — I lost track of Judge Murphy. [Laughter] 15 Matthew J. Connelly, Secretary to the President. the president. What was the question, please? Q. Sir, did Judge Murphy turn down the appointment to this commission, or did you ask him to take it — what is the situation with regard to Judge Murphy? 16 the president. Well, I don't care about answering questions on that line, but Judge Murphy accepted the appointment. Then after he got back to New York, he changed his mind and turned it down. Q. Did he submit any conditions ? the president. No, he did not submit any conditions, because I made all the conditions that were necessary before his acceptance. Q. Mr. President, along that same line, are you still thinking of a substitute for Judge Murphy, or the president. Why, I will not — I don't care about answering that question. That is in the agenda that I said I didn't care to talk about. I will give you all the enlighten- ment possible as soon as I get around to it. Merriman Smith, United Press Associa- tions: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. You're welcome, Smitty. note: President Truman's two hundred and eighty- eighth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, January 3, 1952. 18 Judge Thomas F. Murphy of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had been selected to head a proposed Presi- dential commission to probe and curb corruption in Government. 3 Statement by the President Upon Signing Executive Order Establishing the Missouri Basin Survey Commission. January 3, 1952 I HAVE today signed an Executive order creating a Missouri Basin Survey Commis- sion. It will be the duty of this Commission to study the land and water resources of the Missouri River basin, and to make recom- mendations for the better protection, devel- opment, and use of those resources. The 1 95 1 floods have emphasized to me and to many other citizens the need for an up-to-date survey of the situation in the basin and of the present plans for the devel- [3] Jan. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents opment of its land and water resources. There has not been a thorough reconsidera- tion of the plans for flood control, irrigation, navigation, and hydroelectric power devel- opment in the Missouri basin since the Con- gress authorized the so-called "Pick-Sloan plan" in 1944. More recently, a basinwide program for the development and conserva- tion of land resources was prepared by the Department of Agriculture and submitted to the Congress. There is general agreement that these pre- vious plans contain much that is valuable and sound today. There is also general agreement that there is need now for a thor- ough reevaluation of the whole problem, in order that all who are concerned with the basin — Federal, State, and local govern- ments and private groups and individuals — may have the benefit of an expert and au- thoritative judgment on what are the most important steps that should be taken in the future, and which of them should be taken first. That is why I have established this Com- mission. I want them to review the many different kinds of problems that exist in the large area of the basin — ranging from the high, arid plains and mountains on the west to the humid, level lands along the lower river. I want them to give the country their advice as to the best way to proceed to achieve an orderly, businesslike development of the resources of the basin — a development that places first things first and provides for the greatest resulting benefits for all the peo- ple of the basin and the Nation. The Commission will be composed of 11 members. I expect to ask both private citi- zens and Members of Congress to serve on it. I am asking the Commission to make its final report within a year. I am giving the Commission authority to study the entire Missouri River basin, cover- ing all or parts of the States of Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri, together with such closely related areas as may be desirable. In carrying out its functions, I am in- structing the Commission to take the follow- ing actions: 1. Review existing and proposed plans for the development, protection, and use of land and water resources in the basin. 2. Conduct on-the-site surveys and ap- praisals and hold public hearings. 3. Consider the estimated costs and bene- fits of projects and programs, and the eco- nomic soundness of development proposals. 4. Consult with State representatives and other groups within the basin. 5. Consider the proper division of finan- cial responsibility between the Federal Gov- ernment and the States for resource develop- ment. I wish to make it plain that this new Com- mission is only for the purpose of surveying the situation and making recommendations for improvement. This Commission will not replace the existing Federal or State agen- cies concerned with carrying on development work in the basin. I am convinced — as I think most of the people in the basin are convinced — that we need to improve our present organizational arrangements. I hope this Commission will give us its advice in this field. But the Commission will not itself operate or construct any development projects. Furthermore, we should go ahead, while this Commission is studying the problem, with much important work that is now un- derway in the basin. Federal expenditures for resource development work are neces- sarily being very sharply limited, during the present emergency period. Certain work must go forward, however, even in times like these, in order to strengthen our eco- nomic capacity or to prevent serious eco- nomic loss. The budget which I shall shortly transmit to the Congress contains minimum funds for this type of work, including the commencement of a limited number of proj- ects which should not be longer delayed. I expect the recommendations of the Com- mission to be most valuable in advising us as to how we can achieve the necessary 8 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 9 [5] further development of the basin at the least cost. The Survey Commission I am establishing by this order is similar to that which would be established under a joint resolution intro- duced in Congress last year by Senator Hen- nings and Congressman Magee of Missouri. In the Senate the resolution was cosponsored by Senators Chavez, Clements, Douglas, Green, Hill, Lehman, Murray, Flanders, Langer, Smith (Maine), Kefauver, Hum- phrey, Gillette, and Kerr. The establishment of such a survey group was also recom- mended by the joint Senate-House confer- ence committee on the Army civil functions appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1952. I share with the Members of Congress who have endorsed this approach, the hope that through such a Commission as this we can obtain wise and practical advice as to the best way of proceeding with the vitally im- portant work of developing the land and water resources of the Missouri basin for the benefit of ourselves and our children. note: The President referred to Executive Order 1 03 1 8 "Establishing the Missouri Basin Survey Com- mission" (3 CFR, 1 949-1 953 Comp., p. 846). On February 25, 1952, the President signed Exec- utive Order 10329 "Amending Executive Order No. 1 03 1 8 of January 3, 1952, Relating to the Missouri Basin Survey Commission" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 855). The final report of the Commission, entitled "Missouri: Land and Water," was presented to the President on January 12, 1953 (Government Print- ing Office, 1953, 295 pp.). See also Item 32. 4 Remarks of Welcome to Prime Washington National Airport. MR. PRIME MINISTER, I can't tell you when I have had more pleasure than I have this morning in welcoming you as a visitor to the United States of America. I hope you will enjoy your visit. I hope that it will be a satisfactory one. Great Britain and the Commonwealths and the United States are the closest of friends, and you and I want to keep it that Minister Churchill at the January 5, 1952 way. And I am sure that we will succeed in doing that. It is a pleasure, sir, to welcome you to Washington, D.C. [At this point Prime Minister Churchill responded briefly. The President then resumed speaking.] Peace on earth is what we are both striv- ing for. note: See also Items 6, 16. 5 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. January 9, 1952 [ As delivered in person before a joint session ] Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Congress: I have the honor to report to the Con- gress on the state of the Union. At the outset, I should like to speak of the necessity for putting first things first as we work together this year for the good of our country. The United States and the whole free world are passing through a period of grave danger. Every action you take here in Con- gress, and every action that I take as Presi- dent, must be measured against the test of whether it helps to meet that danger. This will be a presidential election year — the year in which politics plays a large part in our lives — a larger part than usual. That is perfectly proper. But we have a greater [5] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents responsibility to conduct our political fights in a manner that does not harm the national interest. We can find plenty of things to differ about without destroying our free institutions and without abandoning our bipartisan foreign policy for peace. When everything is said and done, all of us — Republicans and Democrats alike — all of us are Americans; and we are all going to sink or swim together. We are moving through a perilous time. Faced with a terrible threat of aggression, our Nation has embarked upon a great effort to help establish the kind of world in which peace shall be secure. Peace is our goal — not peace at any price, but a peace based on freedom and justice. We are now in the midst of our effort to reach that goal. On the whole, we have been doing very well. Last year, 1951, was a year in which we threw back aggression, added greatly to our military strength, and improved the chances for peace and freedom in many parts of the world. This year, 1952, is a critical year in the defense effort of the whole free world. If we falter we can lose all the gains we have made. If we drive ahead, with courage and vigor and determination, we can by the end of 1952 be in a position of much greater security. The way will be dangerous for the years ahead, but if we put forth our best efforts this year — and next year — we can be "over the hump" in our effort to build strong defenses. When we look at the record of the past year, 1 951, we find important things on both the credit and the debit side of the ledger. We have made great advances. At the same time we have run into new problems which must be overcome. Now let us look at the credit side first. Peace depends upon the free nations stick- ing together, and making a combined effort to check aggression and prevent war. In this respect, 1951 was a year of great achieve- ment. In Korea the forces of the United Nations turned back the Chinese Communist inva- sion— and did it without widening the area of conflict. The action of the United Na- tions in Korea has been a powerful deterrent to a third world war. However, the situa- tion in Korea remains very hazardous. The outcome of the armistice negotiation still remains uncertain. In Indochina and Malaya, our aid has helped our allies to hold back the Commu- nist advance, although there are signs of further trouble in that area. In 1 95 1 we strengthened the chances of peace in the Pacific region by the treaties with Japan and the defense arrangements with Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines. In Europe combined defense has become a reality. The free nations have created a real fighting force. This force is not yet as strong as it needs to be; but it is already a real obstacle to any attempt by hostile forces to sweep across Europe to the Atlantic. In 1 95 1 we also moved to strengthen the security of Europe by the agreement to bring Greece and Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty. The United Nations, the world's greatest hope for peace, has come through a year of trial stronger and more useful than ever. The free nations have stood together in blocking Communist attempts to tear up the charter. At the present session of the United Na- tions in Paris, we, together with the British and the French, offered a plan to reduce and control all armaments under a foolproof in- spection system. This is a concrete, prac- tical proposal for disarmament. But what happened? Vishinsky laughed at it. Listen to what he said: "I could hardly sleep at all last night. ... I could not sleep because I kept laughing.,, The world will be a long time forgetting the spectacle of that fellow laughing at disarma- ment. Disarmament is not a joke. Vishinsky 's laughter met with shock and anger from the people all over the world. And, as a result, 10 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 9 [5] Mr. Stalin's representative received orders to stop laughing and start talking. If the Soviet leaders were to accept this proposal, it would lighten the burden of armaments, and permit the resources of the earth to be devoted to the good of mankind. But until the Soviet Union accepts a sound disarmament proposal, and joins in peaceful settlements, we have no choice except to build up our defenses. During this past year we added more than a million men and women to our Armed Forces. The total is now nearly 3 1/2 million. We have made rapid progress in the field of atomic weapons. We have turned out $16 billion worth of military supplies and equip- ment, three times as much as the year before. Economic conditions in the country are good. There are 61 million people on the job; wages, farm incomes, and business profits are at high levels. Total production of goods and services in our country has in- creased 8 percent over last year — about twice the normal rate of growth. Perhaps the most amazing thing about our economic progress is the way we are increas- ing our basic capacity to produce. For ex- ample, we are now in the second year of a 3-year program which will double our out- put of aluminum, increase our electric power supply by 40 percent, and increase our steel- making capacity by 15 percent. We can then produce 120 million tons of steel a year, as much as all the rest of the world put together. This expansion will mean more jobs and higher standards of living for all of us in the years ahead. At the present time it means greater strength for us and for the rest of the free world in the fight for peace. Now, I must turn to the debit side of the ledger for the past year. The outstanding fact to note on the debit side of the ledger is that the Soviet Union, in 1 95 1, continued to expand its military production and increase its already excessive military power. It is true that the Soviets have run into increasing difficulties. Their hostile policies have awakened stern resistance among free men throughout the world. And behind the Iron Curtain the Soviet rule of force has created growing political and economic stresses in the satellite nations. Nevertheless, the grim fact remains that the Soviet Union is increasing its armed might. It is still producing more war planes than the free nations. It has set off two more atomic explosions. The world still walks in the shadow of another world war. And here at home, our defense prepara- tions are far from complete. During 1951 we did not make adequate progress in building up civil defense against atomic attack. This is a major weakness in our plans for peace, since inadequate civilian defense is an open invitation to a surprise attack. Failure to provide adequate civilian defense has the same effect as adding to the enemy's supply of atomic bombs. In the field of defense production we have run into difficulties and delays in designing and producing the latest types of airplanes and tanks. Some machine tools and metals are still in extremely short supply. In other free countries the defense build- up has created severe economic problems. It has increased inflation in Europe and has endangered the continued recovery of our allies. In the Middle East political tensions and the oil controversy in Iran are keeping the region in a turmoil. In the Far East the dark threat of Communist imperialism still hangs over many nations. This, very briefly, is the good side and the bad side of the picture. Taking the good and bad together, we have made real progress this last year along the road to peace. We have increased the power and unity of the free world. And while we were doing this, we have avoided world war on the one hand, and appease- ment on the other. This is a hard road to follow, but the events of the last year show that it is the right road to peace. We cannot expect to complete the job overnight. The free nations may have to II [5] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents maintain for years the larger military forces needed to deter aggression. We must build steadily, over a period of years, toward po- litical solidarity and economic progress among the free nations in all parts of the world. Our task will not be easy; but if we go at it with a will, we can look forward to steady progress. On our side are all the great re- sources of freedom — the ideals of religion and democracy, the aspiration of people for a better life, and the industrial and technical power of a free civilization. These advantages outweigh anything the slave world can produce. The only thing that can defeat us is our own state of mind. We can lose if we falter. The middle period of a great national ef- fort like this is a very difficult time. The way seems long and hard. The goal seems far distant. Some people get discouraged. That is only natural. But if there are any among us who think we ought to ease up in the fight for peace, I want to remind them of three things — just three things. First: The threat of world war is still very real. We had one Pearl Harbor — let's not get caught off guard again. If you don't think the threat of Communist armies is real, talk to some of our men back from Korea. Second: If the United States had to try to stand alone against a Soviet-dominated world, it would destroy the life we know and the ideals we hold dear. Our allies are es- sential to us, just as we are essential to them. The more shoulders there are to bear the burden the lighter that burden will be. Third: The things we believe in most deeply are under relentless attack. We have the great responsibility of saving the basic moral and spiritual values of our civiliza- tion. We have started out well — with a program for peace that is unparalleled in history. If we believe in ourselves and the faith we profess, we will stick to that job until it is victoriously finished. This is a time for courage, not for grum- bling and mumbling. Now, let us take a look at the things we have to do. The thing that is uppermost in the minds of all of us is the situation in Korea. We must, and we will, keep up the fight there until we get the kind of armistice that will put an end to the aggression and protect the safety of our forces and the security of the Republic of Korea. Beyond that we shall continue to work for a settlement in Korea that upholds the principles of the United Nations. We went into Korea because we knew that Communist aggression had to be met firmly if freedom was to be preserved in the world. We went into the fight to save the Republic of Korea, a free country, estab- lished under the United Nations. These are our aims. We will not give up until we attain them. Meanwhile, we must continue to strength- en the forces of freedom throughout the world. I hope the Senate will take early and favor- able action on the Japanese peace treaty, on our security pacts with the Pacific countries, and on the agreement to bring Greece and Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty. We are also negotiating an agreement with the German Federal Republic under which it can play an honorable and equal part among nations and take its place in the defense of Western Europe. But treaties and plans are only the skeleton of our defense structure. The sinew and muscle of defense are the forces and equip- ment which must be provided. In Europe we must go on helping our friends and allies to build up their military forces. This means we must send weapons in large volume to our European allies. I have directed that weapons for Europe be given a very high priority. Economic aid is necessary, too, to supply the margin of difference between success and failure in making Europe a strong partner in our joint defense. In the long run we want to see Europe freed from any dependence on our aid. 12 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 9 [5] Our European allies want that just as bad as we do. The steps that are now being taken to build European unity should help bring that about. Six European countries are pooling their coal and steel production under the Schuman plan. Work is going forward on the merger of European national forces on the Continent into a single army. These great projects should become realities in 1952. We should do all we can to help and encourage the move toward a strong and united Europe. In Asia the new Communist empire is a daily threat to millions of people. The peo- ples of Asia want to be free to follow their own way of life. They want to preserve their culture and their traditions against communism, just as much as we want to pre- serve ours. They are laboring under terrific handicaps — poverty, ill health, feudal sys- tems of land ownership, and the threat of internal subversion or external attack. We can and we must increase our help to them. This means military aid, especially to those places like Indochina which might be hardest hit by some new Communist attack. It also means economic aid, both technical know-how and capital investment. This last year we made available millions of bushels of wheat to relieve famine in India. But far more important, in the long run, is the work Americans are doing in India to help the Indian farmers themselves raise more grain. With the help of our technicians, Indian farmers, using simple, inexpensive means, have been able since 1948 to double the crops in one area in India. One farmer there raised 63 bushels of wheat to the acre, where 13 bushels had been the average before. This is point 4 — our point 4 program at work. It is working — not only in India but in Iran, Paraguay, Liberia — in 33 countries around the globe. Our technical mission- aries are out there. We need more of them. We need more funds to speed their efforts, because there is nothing of greater im- portance in all our foreign policy. There is nothing that shows more clearly what we stand for, and what we want to achieve. My friends of the Congress, less than one- third of the expenditure for the cost of World War II would have created the developments necessary to feed the whole world so we wouldn't have to stomach communism. That is what we have got to fight, and unless we fight that batde and win it, we can't win the cold war or a hot one either. We have recently lost a great public serv- ant who was leading this effort to bring opportunity and hope to the people of half the world. Dr. Henry Bennett and his associates died in line of duty on a point 4 mission. It is up to us to carry on the great work for which they gave their lives. During the coming year we must not for- get the suffering of the people who live be- hind the Iron Curtain. In those areas mi- norities are being oppressed, human rights violated, religions persecuted. We should continue to expose those wrongs. We should continue and expand the activities of the Voice of America, which brings our message of hope and truth to those peoples and other peoples throughout the world. I have just had an opportunity to discuss many of these world problems with Prime Minister Churchill. We have had a most satisfactory series of meetings. We thor- oughly reviewed the situation in Europe, the Middle East, and the Far East. We both look forward to steady progress toward peace through the cooperative action and team- work of the free nations. Turning from our foreign policies, let us consider the jobs we have here at home as a part of our program for peace. The first of these jobs is to move ahead full steam on the defense program. Our objective is to have a well-equipped active defense force large enough — in con- cert with the forces of our allies — to deter aggression and to inflict punishing losses on the enemy immediately if we should be attacked. This active force must be backed by adequate reserves, and by the plants and tools to turn out the tremendous quantities 13 [5] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents of new weapons that would be needed if war came. We are not building an active force adequate to carry on full scale war, but we are putting ourselves in a position to mobilize very rapidly if we have to. This year I shall recommend some in- creases in the size of the active force we are building, with particular emphasis on air power. This means we shall have to con- tinue large-scale production of planes and other equipment for a longer period of time than we had originally planned. Planes and tanks and other weapons — what the military call "hard goods" — are now beginning to come off the production lines in volume. Deliveries of hard goods now amount to about a billion and a half dollars worth a month. A year from now, we expect that rate to be doubled. We shall have to hold to a high rate of military output for about a year after that. In 1954 we hope to have enough equipment so that we can reduce the production of most military items substantially. The next 2 years should therefore be the peak period of defense production. Defense needs will take a lot of steel, aluminum, copper, nickel, and other scarce materials. This means smaller production of some civilian goods. The cutbacks will be nothing like those during World War II, when most civilian production was com- pletely stopped. But there will be consider- ably less of some goods than we have been used to these past 2 or 3 years. The very critical part of our defense job this year is to keep down inflation. We can control inflation if we make up our minds to do it. On the executive side of the Government, we intend to hold the line on prices just as tightly as the law allows. We will permit only those wage increases which are clearly justified under sound stabilization policies; and we will see to it that industries absorb cost increases out of earnings wherever feasible, before they are authorized to raise prices. We will do that, at any rate, except where the recent amendments to the law specifically require us to give further price increases. Congress has a tremendous responsibility in this matter. Our stabilization law was shot full of holes at the last session. This year, it will be one of the main tasks before the Congress to repair the damage and enact a strong anti-inflation law. As a part of our program to keep our country strong, we are determined to pre- serve the financial strength of the Govern- ment. This means high taxes over the next few years. We must see to it that these taxes are shared among the people as fairly as possible. I expect to discuss these matters in the Economic Report and the Budget Mes- sage which will soon be presented to the Congress. Our tax laws must be fair. And we must make absolutely certain they are admin- istered fairly, without fear or favor of any kind for anybody. To this end, steps have already been taken to remedy weaknesses which have been disclosed in the administra- tion of the tax laws. • In addition, I hope the Congress will approve my reorganization plan for the Bureau of Internal Revenue. We must do everything necessary in order to make just as certain as is humanly pos- sible that every taxpayer receives equal treat- ment under the law. To carry the burden of defense we must have a strong, productive, and expanding economy here at home. We cannot neglect those things that have made us the great and powerful nation we are today. Our strength depends upon the health, the morale, the freedom of our people. We can take on the burden of leadership in the fight for world peace because, for nearly 20 years, the Government and the people have been working together for the general wel- fare. We have given more and more of our citizens a fair chance at decent, useful, pro- ductive lives. That is the reason we are as strong as we are today. This Government of ours — the Congress and the executive both — must keep on work- ing to bring about a fair deal for all the 14 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 9 [5] American people. Some people will say that we haven't the time or the money this year for measures for the welfare of the peo- ple. But if we want to win the fight for peace, this is a part of the job we cannot ignore. We will have to give up some things, we will have to go forward on others at a slower pace. But, so far as I am concerned, I do not think we can give up the things that are vital to our national strength. I believe most people in this country will agree with me on that. I think most farmers understand that soil conservation and rural electrification and agricultural research are not frills or luxu- ries, but real necessities in order to boost our farm production. I think most workers understand that de- cent housing and good working conditions are not luxuries, but necessities if the work- ing men and women of this country are to continue to out-produce the rest of the world. I think our businessmen know that scien- tific research and transportation services and more steel mills and power projects are not luxuries, but necessities to keep our business and our industry in the forefront of indus- trial progress. I think everybody knows that social in- surance and better schools and health serv- ices are not frills, but necessities in helping all Americans to be useful and productive citizens, who can contribute their full share in the national effort to protect and advance our way of life. We cannot do all we want to in times like these — we have to choose the things that will contribute most to defense — but we must continue to make progress if we are to be a strong nation in the years ahead. Let me give you some examples. We are going right ahead with the ur- gently needed work to develop our natural resources, to conserve our soil, and to prevent floods. We are going to produce essential power and build the lines that are necessary and that we have to have to transmit it to our farms and factories. We are going to encourage exploration for new mineral de- posits. We are going to keep on building essen- tial highways and taking any other steps that will assure the Nation an adequate transportation system — on land, on the sea, and in the air. We must move right ahead this year to see that defense workers and soldiers' fam- ilies get decent housing at rents they can afford to pay. We must begin our long deferred pro- gram of Federal aid to education — to help the States meet the present crisis in the opera- tion of our schools. And we must help with the construction of schools in areas where they are critically needed because of the defense effort. We urgently need to train more doctors and other health personnel, through aid to medical education. We also urgently need to expand the basic public health services in our home communities — especially in de- fense areas. The Congress should go ahead with these two measures immediately. I have set up an impartial commission to make a thorough study of the Nation's health needs. One of the things this com- mission is looking into is how to bring the cost of modern medical care within the reach of all the people. I have repeatedly recommended national health insurance as the best way to do this. So far as I know, it is still the best way. If there are any better answers, I hope this commission will find them. But of one thing I am sure: something must be done, and done soon. This year we ought to make a number of urgently needed improvements in our social security law. For one thing, benefits under old-age and survivors insurance should be raised $5 a month above the present average of $42. For another thing, the States should be given special aid to help them increase public assistance payments. By doing these things now, we can ease the pressure of living costs for people who depend on those fixed payments. We should also make some cost-of-living 15 [5] Jan- 9 Public Papers of the Presidents adjustments for those receiving veterans' compensation for death or disability incurred in the service of our country. In addition, now is the time to start a sensible program of readjustment benefits for our veterans who have seen service since the fighting broke out in Korea. Another thing the Congress should do at this session is to strengthen our system of farm price supports to meet the defense emergency. The "sliding scale" in the price support law should not be allowed to pe- nalize farmers for increasing production to meet defense needs. We should also find a new and less costly method for supporting perishable commodities than the law now provides. We need to act promptly to improve our labor law. The Taft-Hardey Act has many serious and far-reaching defects. Expe- rience has demonstrated this so clearly that even the sponsors of the act now admit that it needs to be changed. A fair law, fair to both management and labor, is indis- pensable to sound labor relations and to full, uninterrupted production. I intend to keep on working for a fair law until we get one. As we build our strength to defend the freedom in the world, we ourselves must ex- tend the benefits of freedom more widely among all our own people. We need to take action toward the wider enjoyment of civil rights. Freedom is the birthright of every American. The executive branch has been making real progress toward full equality of treat- ment and opportunity — in the Armed Forces, in the civil service, and in private firms working for the Government. Fur- ther advances require action by Congress, and I hope that means will be provided to give the Members of the Senate and the House a chance to vote on them. I am glad to hear that home rule for the District of Columbia will be the first item of business before the Senate. I hope that it, as well as statehood for Hawaii and Alaska, will be adopted promptly. All these measures I have been talking about — measures to advance the well-being of our people — demonstrate to the world the forward movement of our free society. This demonstration of the way free men govern themselves has a more powerful in- fluence on the people of the world — on both sides of the Iron Curtain — than all the trick slogans and pie-in-the-sky promises of the Communists. But our shortcomings, as well as our prog- ress, are watched from abroad. And there is one shortcoming I want to speak about plainly. Our kind of government above all others cannot tolerate dishonesty among public servants. Some dishonest people worm themselves into almost every human organization. It is all the more shocking, however, when they make their way into a Government such as ours, which is based on the principle of justice for all. Such unworthy public serv- ants must be weeded out. I intend to see to it that Federal employees who have been guilty of misconduct are punished for it. I also intend to see to it that the honest and hard-working great majority of our Federal employees are protected against partisan slander and malicious attack. I have already made some recommenda- tions to the Congress to help accomplish these purposes. I intend to submit further recommendations to this end. I will wel- come the wholehearted cooperation of the Congress in this effort. I also think that the Congress can do a great deal to strengthen confidence in our institutions by applying rigorous standards of moral integrity to its own operations, and by finding an effective way to control cam- paign expenditures, and by protecting the rights of individuals in congressional inves- tigations. To meet the crisis which now hangs over the world, we need many different kinds of strength — military, economic, political, and moral. And of all these, I am convinced 16 Harry S. Truman, igp Jan. 9 [6] that moral strength is the most vital. When you come right down to it, it is the courage and the character of our Na- tion— and of each one of us as individuals — that will really decide how well we meet this challenge. We are engaged in a great undertaking at home and abroad — the greatest, in fact, that any nation has ever been privileged to embark upon. We are working night and day to bring peace to the world and to spread the democratic ideals of justice and self- government to all people. Our accom- plishments are already remarkable. We ought to be full of pride in what we are doing, and full of confidence and hope in the outcome. No nation ever had greater resources, or greater energy, or nobler tradi- tions to inspire it. And yet, day in and day out, we see a long procession of timid and fearful men who wring their hands and cry out that we have lost the way, that we don't know what we are doing, that we are bound to fail. Some say we should give up the struggle for peace, and others say we should have a war and get it over with. That's a terrible statement. I had heard it made, but they want us to forget the great objective of preventing an- other world war — the objective for which our soldiers have been fighting in the hills of Korea. If we are to be worthy of all that has been done for us by our soldiers in the field, we must be true to the ideals for which they are fighting. We must reject the counsels of defeat and despair. We must have the determination to complete the great work for which our men have laid down their lives. In all we do, we should remember who we are and what we stand for. We are Americans. Our forefathers had far greater obstacles than we have, and much poorer chances of success. They did not lose heart, or turn aside from their goals. In the dark- est of all winters in American history, at Valley Forge, George Washington said: "We must not, in so great a contest, expect to meet with nothing but sunshine." With that spirit they won their fight for freedom. We must have that same faith and vision. In the great contest in which we are engaged today, we cannot expect to have fair weather all the way. But it is a contest just as im- portant for this country and for all men, as the desperate struggle that George Washing- ton fought through to victory. Let us prove, again, that we are not merely sunshine patriots and summer soldiers. Let us go forward, trusting in the God of Peace, to win the goals we seek. note: The President spoke at 12:30 p.m. The address was broadcast nationally. 6 Joint Statement Following Discussions With Prime Minister Churchill. January 9, 1952 THE PRESIDENT and the Prime Minister held four meetings at the White House on January 7 and 8, 1952. The Prime Minister was accompanied by the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Anthony Eden, by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, Lord Ismay, and by the Paymaster-General, Lord Cher- well. The President's advisers included the Secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Mr. Charles E. Wilson, and Mr. W. Averell Har- riman. The visit of Mr. Churchill and his colleagues also afforded opportunities for a number of informal meetings. At the end of the talks the President and the Prime Minister issued the follow- ing announcement: During the last two days we have been able to talk over, on an intimate and per- sonal basis, the problems of this critical time. Our discussions have been conducted in mutual friendship, respect and confidence. Each of our Governments has thereby gained a better understanding of the thoughts and aims of the other. 17 [6] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents The free countries of the world are re- solved to unite their strength and purpose to ensure peace and security. We affirm the determination of our Governments and peo- ples to further this resolve, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The strong ties which unite our two countries are a massive contribution to the building of the strength of the free world. Under arrangements made for the com- mon defense, the United States has the use of certain bases in the United Kingdom. We reaffirm the understanding that the use of these bases in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by His Majesty's Government and the United States Govern- ment in the light of the circumstances pre- vailing at the time. We share the hope and the determina- tion that war, with all its modern weapons, shall not again be visited on mankind. We will remain in close consultation on the de- velopments which might increase danger to the maintenance of world peace. We do not believe that war is inevitable. This is the basis of our policies. We are willing at any time to explore all reason- able means of resolving the issues which now threaten the peace of the world. The United States Government is in full accord with the views expressed in the joint statement issued in Paris on December 18, 1 95 1, at the conclusion of the Anglo-French discussions. Our two Governments will con- tinue to give their full support to the efforts now being made to establish a European Defense Community, and will lend all as- sistance in their power in bringing it to fruition. We believe that this is the best means of bringing a democratic Germany as a full and equal partner into a purely defensive organization for European secu- rity. The defense of the free world will be strengthened and solidified by the creation of a European Defense Community as an ele- ment in a constandy developing Atlantic Community. Our Governments are resolved to promote the stability, peaceful development, and prosperity of the countries of the Middle East. We have found a complete identity of aims between us in this part of the world, and the two Secretaries of State will continue to work out together agreed policies to give effect to this aim. We think it essential for the furtherance of our common purposes that an Allied Middle East Command should be set up as soon as possible. As regards Egypt, we are confident that the Four Power approach offers the best prospect of relieving the present tension. We both hope that the initiative taken by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development will lead to a solution of the Iranian oil problem acceptable to all the interests concerned. We have discussed the many grave prob- lems affecting our two countries in the Far East. A broad harmony of view has emerged from these discussions; for we recognize that the overriding need to counter the Com- munist threat in that area transcends such divergencies as there are in our policies to- ward China. We will continue to give full support for United Nations measures against aggression in Korea until peace and security are restored there. We are glad that the Chiefs of Staff of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France will be meet- ing in the next few days to consider specific measures to strengthen the security of South- east Asia. We have considered how our two coun- tries could best help one another in the sup- ply of scarce materials important to their defense programs and their economic sta- bility. The need of the United Kingdom for additional supplies of steel from the United States, and the need of the United States for supplies of other materials, including alu- minum and tin, were examined. Good progress was made. The discussions will be continued and we hope that agreement may be announced shortly. We have reviewed the question of stand- 18 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 10 [7] ardization of rifles and ammunition in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nei- ther country thinks it wise at this critical time to take the momentous step of changing its rifle. In the interest of economy, both in time and money, we have agreed that the United States and the United Kingdom will continue to rely upon rifles and ammunition now in stock and currently being produced. In the interest however of eventual stand- ardization, we have also agreed that both countries will produce their new rifles and ammunition only on an experimental scale while a common effort is made to devise a rifle and ammunition suitable for future standardization. The question of the Atlantic Command is still under discussion. Throughout our talks we have been im- pressed by the need to strengthen the North Atiantic Treaty Organization by every means within our power and in full accord with our fellow members. We are resolved to build an Atlantic Community, not only for immediate defense, but for enduring progress. note: A White House release of January 18, 1952, announced that the United States and the United Kingdom had reached agreement for mutual assist- ance with respect to scarce materials. The release stated that the United States would help the United Kingdom meet its serious shortage of steel by supplying 1 million long tons of steel, scrap, and pig iron for purchase during 1952. In return the United Kingdom agreed to make available during 1952 a total of 20,000 long tons of tin, at $1.18 per pound, and 55,100,000 pounds of aluminum. The agreement stipulated that the aluminum was to be replaced by the United States before the middle of 1953 when the U.S. aluminum expansion program would be in operation. For joint statement relating to the Atlantic Com- mand see Item 1 6. 7 The President's News Conference of January 10, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I have appointed a Committee on Government Contract Compliance, with D wight Palmer as Chairman; James B. Casey; Dowdal H. Davis; Irving Engel Q. Pardon me, Mr. President, would you give us the spelling of the third man — Dowdal? the president. D-o-w-d-a-1, H. Davis; Irving Engel; Oliver Hill; George Meany. And this has been mimeographed and you will have a copy of it. Mr. Short: That second name was James B. Carey, sir. the president. He is Secretary-Treas- urer — James B. Carey; but you will have copies of this, so there won't be any errors.1 *For the President's statement upon signing Ex- ecutive Order 10308 establishing the Committee on Government Contract Compliance, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 299. The Committee was composed of the following members representing the public: Dwight R. G. [2.] Q. Mr. President, I was just won- dering if you are aware now of General Eisenhower's availability for the Republican presidential nomination? [Laughter] the president. I read five or six papers every morning, and I am. [More laughter] Q. Mr. President, can you say whether Palmer, chairman of the board, General Cable Corp., who served as Chairman; James B. Carey, secretary-treasurer, Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions; Dowdal H. Davis, general manager, Kansas City Call; Irving M. Engel, chairman, executive committee, American Jewish Committee; Oliver W. Hill, attorney, Richmond, Va.; and George Meany, secretary-treasurer, American Federation of Labor. In addition to the above-named members the Committee was composed of representatives of five Government agencies: Russell Forbes, Deputy Ad- ministrator, General Services Administration, who also represented the Defense Materials Procurement Agency; Michael J. Galvin, Under Secretary of Labor; Everett L. Hollis, General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission; and John D. Small, Chairman, Munitions Board, Department of Defense. See also Items 26 [1], 389. 19 [7] Jan. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents that availability has made any change in your plans for 1952? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. You can't say, or it has not? the president. It has not. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us, sir, what the significance is of your request to Mr. McKinney 2 and through him to Sen- ator Humphrey that your name not be en- tered in the Minnesota preferential primary? the president. Well, the same situation, as it has always prevailed: I am not ready to make any announcements. Q. Your failure — I mean your request that it not be entered — doesn't necessarily mean that you have decided not to seek the president. It doesn't preclude me from anything. [4.] Q. Mr. President, last week, when the Attorney General left your Cabinet meet- ing, he said that he anticipated no change in his status. Would you care to comment on that? the president. He is correct. There will be no change. [5.] Q. Mr. President, a few months ago I believe you told us that your favorite candidate for the Republican ticket was Senator Taft. Have you changed your opinion? the president. No, I haven't. [6.] Q. Mr. President, I take it that this Committee on Government Contract Com- pliance is different from any cleanup com- mission that you have appointed in the Gov- ernment? the president. This is strictly a Contract Compliance Commission. Q. Yes sir — yes sir. Congressman Poage of Texas has suggested that it might be nice to name a commission — for cleaner-upers in Government — of Jim Farley, Judge Patter- son, and Stuart Symington.3 Would you 2 Frank E. McKinney, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 3 James A. Farley, former Postmaster General, and former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Robert P. Patterson, former Secretary of War, and W. Stuart Symington, Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. care to talk to those three men? the president. They are fine gentlemen. The Attorney General will carry out the job that is necessary. [7.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us why you think Mr. Taft would be the easiest for the Democrats to beat? the president. Well now, if you can't fig- ure it out, there's no use my trying to. [Laughter] Q. I know what I think. I wondered what you thought? the president. I have no comment. Q. Mr. President, how do you rate Harold Stassen4 along that line? the president. A wonderful man. [Laughter] Q. Would he be harder to beat than Taft? the president. No comment. Q. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk that your eventual course might be determined by the identity of the Republi- can candidate. Would that affect your thinking, sir? the president. Well, I will give you the information on my course before there is any Republican nomination, Joe.5 Mr. Fox: Thank you, sir. [Laughter] That means I beat Smitty 6 out of $5. the president. You beat him out of $5? Mr. Fox: That's the way I read that. the president. Why didn't you tell me? [More laughter] [8.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would give us your personal estimate of your visit with Prime Minister Churchill? the president. Very satisfactory. Q. Would you care to comment about it, sir? the president. The communique tells you everything that is necessary to be said.7 [9.] Q. Mr. President, you said the At- 4 President of the University of Pennsylvania and former Governor of Minnesota. 5 Joseph A. Fox of the Washington Star. 6Merriman Smith of the United Press Associa- tions. 7 See Item 6. 20 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 10 [7] torney General would carry out the so- called cleanup. Does that mean that there will be no special commission such as was talked about at one time? the president. That is correct. Q. Mr. President, you said "if necessary." Do you think it is necessary? THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not. Q. I mean, the Attorney General will carry out the job if necessary. the president. He will carry it out. And of course whatever is necessary will be done by the law enforcement officer of the Government. Q. But you do think it is necessary to do something about it? the president. Whatever is necessary to be done will be done. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, does that — I didn't hear — does this mean that the commission idea of your previous plan has been dis- carded ? the president. I think that the law en- forcement officer of the Government is the one to carry out a cleanup, if a cleanup is nec- essary, and in some places I think it is; and we have cleaned up a lot of places. Q. We had a report that Daniel Poling from Philadelphia — your old friend — had been asked the president. He has always been a con- sultant of mine. He is a good Baptist. Q. Well, how will he figure in this, if the Attorney General is going to clean up? the president. Well, we will answer that when it becomes necessary. [10.] Q. Mr. President, you said at the start, after reading your paper — you were aware of General Eisenhower's availability for the Republican presidential nomination. What do you think of that? the president. Well, I think I answered that question back in August, when I said I thought Eisenhower was a grand man. I have the utmost confidence in him, and I gave him one of the most important jobs that this Government has to offer. My ideas and my position with regard to General Eisenhower haven't changed. Q. Mr. President, at that August press conference,8 as I recall it, the question was about a statement that you had made to General Eisenhower in 1945 the president. 1948. Q. 1945, sir. the president. No, it was in 1948. 1948 is the one referred to, I am sure, but go ahead. Q. The statement, sir, being that there was no job the General might want that you wouldn't help him get, and if — this specif- ically included the Presidency of the United States in 1948. And I asked you at the August press conference whether that state- ment applied equally to 1952 as it did — [loud laughter interrupting, as Joseph Short (Secretary to the President) handed the President a piece of paper], the president. Here is a transcript of that press conference, and you are entitled to read it. That still stands. Q. The statement still stands? the president. Yes, sir. Q. What stands, Mr. President? the president. Read it. All you have to do is to read it. Q. We don't have it. Q. Could we have it read to us? the president. Well, we'll let you read it, Tony.9 [Much laughter, as the paper was handed to him]. Q. Read it slowly. the president. Tony, read it slowly! [More laughter] Mr. Vaccaro: This is the question. [Reading] "I would like to ask you about another statement. In the General's book 'Crusade in Europe,' he quotes you as hav- ing told him, when you were in Europe one time, that there was no position he wanted that you wouldn't help him get, and that specifically included the Presidency in 1948. I would like to know if that applies to 1952 as well as 1948? "the president. It certainly does. "Q. It certainly does? 8 See 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 188 [n]. 9 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 21 55-672—66- [7] Jan. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents "the president. Yes. I am just as fond of General Eisenhower as I can be. I think he is one of the great men produced by World War II " the president. [Interposing] That is ab- solutely true, Tony. Go ahead. Mr. Vaccaro: [Continuing reading] "- and I think I have shown that by giving him the most important job that is avail- able for his ability. "Q. Mr. President, would that mean that if General Eisenhower wants to be Presi- dent, you would help him get that job? "the president. I didn't say that. [Laughter] "Q. Well, Mr. President, I would like to know what was — not to cross-examine you, but what were you referring to when you said 'It certainly does' to Bill Lawrence's statement? "the president. Well, you will have to translate that any way you can, Smitty. I am glad ■" [Loud laughter at the way this was read] " as I say, I am very fond of General Eisenhower. I don't think he is a candi- date for President on the Democratic ticket " the president, [interjecting] And he said that, just the other day. Mr. Vaccaro: [Continuing reading] " and I couldn't very well help him to be a candidate on the Republican ticket, because I don't think that would do him any good. [More laughter] Anyway, I have another candidate on the Republican ticket. "Q. Would that be Senator Taft, sir? "It would be." the president. There's your answer! [Much laughter] Q. Mr. President, I'll have to congratulate you for giving Vaccaro the microphone and getting it back again. the president. Well, Tony is always tell- ing me to go slowly, and I just wanted him to try his own hand at the thing. [More laughter] Q. He didn't get a chance to make any notes. Q. Mr. President, do you have any under- standing with General Eisenhower about how long he will continue in his present assignment? 10 the president. Yes, I have. He said he would continue as long as it was necessary, or as long as he thought — as / thought he ought to. I have that in writing. Q. Mr. President, in that connection, you were asked at an earlier press conference how long that might be? the president. I can't answer. Q. You said — I think you said the president. I can't answer. Q. I think you said that it wouldn't inter- fere with any ideas General Eisenhower might have the president. That is correct. Q. in connection with the Presi- dency? the president. That is correct. I don't want to stand in his way at all, because I think very highly of him, and if he wants to get out and have all the mud and rotten eggs and rotten tomatoes thrown at him, that is his business, and I won't stand in his way. Q. Well, Mr. President, the General's statement the other day said that he would not ask to be relieved, so that leaves the initiative with you, does it not? the president. Unless he is nominated, in which case he will have to be relieved. Q. Well, Mr. President, would you con- sider that if you were a Democratic candi- date and he were a Republican candidate, you would be standing in his way? the president. Not the slightest. I al- ways hoped he would turn out to be a Democrat. Q. Mr. President, as of the moment, does it appear that General Eisenhower would stay in Europe at least until July? the president. He will stay there, I am sure, as long as it is absolutely necessary for him to stay. That may be July. Q. What I meant by that, sir, was, do you anticipate that there is a possibility of 10 Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. 22 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 10 [7] the situation being so that you could make the change in commanders between now and July? the president. I shall not ever relieve General Eisenhower except at his request. Q. Well, he said he would not ask to be relieved, and I was trying to get your timing as to July the president. I am saying to you that I will not relieve him except at his request. What's on your mind, May? 1X Mrs. Craig: That brings it down to the nomination of the candidate, because he said he would not ask to be relieved. the president. All right, you had better consult him. I have told you what I am going to do. Q. You said a moment ago, didn't you, that if he were nominated he would have to ask to be relieved, is that correct? the president. Of course he would. Can't run for President and be the com- manding general in Europe. Q. Mr. President, if I may assume to clarify Mr. Lawrence's 12 question, I take it that he wants to know whether you think that the situation in Europe will be easier by next July than it is now so he could be spared ? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion because I don't know. I hope it will be. Q. Did you know last August that Gen- eral Eisenhower was not a Democrat and would run preferably as a Republican? the president. No. I have been told that — I had been told, at that time, that he was a Democrat. Q. That he was a Democrat? the president. Yes. Q. Until now? the president. I was told by a brother of a former Governor of Kansas that in 19 18 General Eisenhower was one of the precinct workers for George Hodges when he ran for Governor on the Democratic ticket in Kansas, and was elected. That is all the 11 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. 12 William H. Lawrence of the New York Times. information I had at that time. Q. Who was that, sir, the Governor of Kansas? the president. George Hodges. Q. Hodges? the president. H-o-d-g-e-s. Q. Mr. President, what do you think of Senator Paul Douglas's proposal that both parties nominate General Eisenhower? the president. Well, I have always been against a one-party system. I think that is the road to communism. Q. Mr. President, when did you find out he was a Republican, sir? the president. When his announce- ment Q. I mean, previously in a press confer- ence you said that you thought that he was a Republican. the president. I came to that conclusion after all the conversation that had gone on, and I was assured of it in the statement that he made. Q. Yes, sir. This was some weeks ago? the president. Well, I tell you, I was thinking about the situation. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, a moment ago I un- derstood you to say that he would stay on at least until July, is that correct? the president. He will stay on as long as I can keep him there, because I want him to stay. I like him. And he is doing a good job. Q. Mr. President, what is your general thinking on the question of a professional military man in the Presidency? the president. Well, I might refer you to a historical document in the American Dictionary of Biography. In 1852 a Gen- eral ran for President. Read that. His name was Winfield Scott. That will give you the answer. Q. Could you sort of give us a clue, Mr. President? the president. No. You are going to have to do your own reading. [Laughter] I am not going to quote history to you. I will teach you some history. Read! Just read the biography of General Scott. And 23 [7] Jan. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents you might read also the biography of the fellow that beat him. His name was Franklin Pierce, who was a brigadier gen- eral in Scott's army. And it is most inter- esting. Read them both, it will do you good. Q. Mr. President, do you mean that if the next President cannot be a Democrat you think that Eisenhower would make the best President for the country among the Republicans? the president. I didn't say that — I didn't say that. I don't think the country would be good under any Republican. [Laughter] Q. That is not what I asked, sir. Q. Mr. President, are you comparing Eisenhower with Winfield Scott? the president. Read the biography and then see what you think. Q. I have read something about it. the president. Well, read it. You haven't read it all. You had better read Franklin Pierce's, too. Q. Mr. President, how could you run against a fellow you liked so well? the president. Easily. I have done it before. Q. Do you intend to, Mr. President? the president. That I will answer at a later date. Q. Mr. President, you said you would an- swer that before the Republican Convention. the president. That is correct. Q. Your decision — will Mrs. Truman be happy with your decision? the president. You ask her. I don't speak for her. I call her "the boss." [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, when are you going to get back on your train? the president. Well, whenever the Dem- ocratic Convention is over, I shall go out and try to elect a Democratic candidate — whoever he may be. [Laughter] Q. Do you anticipate it before the con- vention? the president. No. [ii.] Q. Mr. President, to go back to this commission for just a minute, did Jus- tice— Judge Murphy's declination change the manner — was it because he turned it down that you abandoned the commission idea? 13 the president. Well, I came to the con- clusion, after much thought, that it is the business of the Office of the Attorney Gen- eral to do the job. Q. Mr. President, I have one question on that. David Lawrence's column said today that you had offered the Attorney General's office to Justin Miller? 14 the president. I have no comment on that. Q. Mr. President, did you get a declina- tion of that from Judge Murphy in writing? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Could you make that letter public, sir? the president. No. I shall not. [12.] Q. Mr. President, after all this beating around the bush — [Laughter] — if somebody asked you right out will you run again, would you answer? THE PRESIDENT. No, I will not. You wouldn't have anything to talk about at the next press conference if I answered that. [13.] Q. Mr. President, you said you didn't think the country would do well under a Republican. Do you think that the coun- try, however, would be in good hands under General Eisenhower? the president. I said under a Republican. I stick to that. Q. Well, Mr. President, do you think that the General has enough Democratic infor- mation so that it wouldn't make too much difference? the president. I can't answer that because I haven't talked to him about it. [14.] Q. We have a report from Paris this morning that General de Lattre de Tas- 13 See Item 2 [20]. 14 President of the National Association of Broad- 24 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 12 [9] signy, the French High Commissioner in Indochina, is dying.15 I wonder if you had any the president. I hadn't heard that, and I am extremely sorry to hear that that is true, because he is a great man and has done a 15 Gen. Jean de Lattre de Tassigny died in Paris on January n, 1952. wonderful job in Indochina. Merriman Smith: Thank you, Mr. Presi- dent. the president. You're welcome. note: President Truman's two hundred and eighty- ninth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:35 a-m- on Thursday, January 10, 1952. Special Message to the Senate Transmitting Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Accession of Greece and Turkey. January 10, 1952 To the Senate of the United States: With a view to receiving the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, I trans- mit herewith a certified copy of a Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the Acces- sion of Greece and Turkey which was opened for signature at London on October 17, 1 95 1 and has been signed on behalf of the United States of America and the other Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty. I transmit also for the information of the Senate the report made to me by the Secre- tary of State regarding this matter. It is my firm belief that the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty at this time to in- clude Greece and Turkey — two countries which have been collaborating so effectively with the other members of the free world in building the structure of peace — is a requisite step in the furtherance of the Treaty's ob- jectives. I hope, therefore, that the Senate will find it possible to give early and favor- able consideration to this Protocol. Harry S. Truman note: The Protocol was favorably considered by the Senate on February 7, 1952, and after ratification entered into force on February 15, 1952. It was proclaimed by the President on March 4, 1952. The text of the Protocol is printed in United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (3 UST 43). The Protocol is also printed, along with the report of the Secretary of State, in Executive E (82d Cong., 2d sess.). Statement by the President on Civil Defense. January 12, 1952 OUR NATION'S top strategists have long since recognized that total defense plans are necessary for our survival. No longer can we rely on the strength-of-arms alone if a global war is thrust upon us. America's strength rests on the will of our people to resist aggression and in our power and ability to out-produce and out-fight a potential enemy. For that reason, an enemy must strike first at the homefront which is the source of our strength-in-arms. If an enemy is unable to crush our will to fight and cripple our pro- duction lines, then he cannot win a war against America. For that reason we have pushed forward as rapidly as possible to develop a national system of protection for our people and our production. That system we know as civil defense. It is rated by our top military leaders as a coequal partner with the military in our security program. One year ago the Congress passed, and I 25 [p] Jan. 12 Public Papers of the Presidents signed, Public Law 920 creating the Fed- eral Civil Defense Administration under the leadership of the former Governor of Flor- ida, Millard Caldwell. The prime task of that agency has been to provide the leadership and the planning and the impetus for a national system of civil defense which will be manned by our States and our cities. I can report to you that in this short year there has been substantial progress in civil defense throughout the Nation. This prog- ress, although far from enough, has added to our total strength as a nation. Because of what civil defense has been able to accomplish against considerable odds, I am convinced that this country is today more alert and better prepared against enemy attack than it has ever been in our peacetime history — but we are far from being fully ready. Our people, particularly in the cities, have learned some of the basic lessons of survival in case of enemy attack. That knowledge would save many thousands of lives if an attack came. The public generally has come to recog- nize that this new dimension of modern war, civil defense, is now a regular part of our daily lives for many years to come. I can report that our States and our cities are moving forward on all fronts in civil defense but, unfortunately, with varying degrees of effectiveness. I think it is safe to say that practically all of our cities, both large and small, have civil defense organiza- tions in being. But we must do more. While nearly 2,000,000 patriotic citizens have volunteered, during the past year, to serve actively in their local civil defense organizations, approximately 17,500,000 trained and organized defense workers are needed if we are to do the job properly. In addition we must have in reserve for civil defense far greater quantities of medical supplies, fire trucks, equipment to combat biological and chemical warfare, and shelters than we have at present. Until civil defense is manned by many more millions of trained volunteers and until the desperately needed supplies and equipment for civil defense are in place and ready to use, America will not be prepared to resist aggression. When our people and our cities are trained and organized to cope with sudden atomic attacks the enemy may well conclude that such attacks are not worth making. For that reason, we must look upon a strong civil defense program as a positive force in helping keep the peace of the world. Those responsible for civil defense pre- paredness throughout the Nation have worked hard against considerable odds. They have sometimes fought apathy in their own official circles, particularly in our own Congress. They have worked dili- gently to interest the public in self-protection and the necessity for volunteering for service in civil defense. But as effective as their efforts have been, they must be redoubled in the coming months. Regardless of the wishful talk you may hear to the contrary, you and I are now in a national emergency as grave as any we have ever faced. We have not won the war against time. We have no right to feel safe militarily or on the homefront. You may be sure that I will be the first to tell you when urgency is no longer a grave problem in our security program. That is not now the case. Let me warn you again that there is no such thing as bargain basement preparedness or escape from the hard realities of the time. There are no short cuts to civil defense pre- paredness. It is a tough, unpleasant but grimly necessary job. Fortunately, civil defense is in the Amer- ican tradition, dating back to the frontier days when all members of every family had a task to do in defending their homes and their stockades from marauding savages. We can do this job of protecting our homes and our cities just as our forefathers did. But we must do it before it is too late. If war comes to America, we may well win or lose as the result of how ready we are 26 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 14 [11] when the first attack comes. I cannot tell you when or where the attack will come or that it will come at all. I can only remind you that we must be ready if it does come. I have every faith that the people of this country will recognize the dangers that face us and that they are willing to share the responsibility and dangers of defending this country with the man in uniform. But civil defense readiness throughout the Nation is not something that can be done tomorrow. It must be done today — or it may be too late. To lose the sense of ur- gency and the need for individual action in civil defense now would be to let down our guard at a most dangerous time. You may be sure that the enemy is always waiting for just such an opening. note: On January 12, 1951, the President signed the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 1245). For the President's statement upon sign- ing the act, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 10. 10 Message to the Congress Transmitting First Report on Inclusion of Escape Clauses in Trade Agreements. January 14, 1952 [ Released January 14, 1952. Dated January 10, 1952 ] To the Congress of the United States: Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 6 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 195 1 (Public Law 50, 82nd Congress), I hereby submit to the Congress a report on trade agreement escape clauses. A review of the existing trade agreements in the light of the policy expressed in sub- section (a) of Section 6 and its legislative history shows that all except six are in con- formity with this policy. One of these six agreements is in the process of being termi- nated and another is under renegotiation which is likely to include the addition of escape clause provisions. Subcommittees of the Interdepartmental Committee on Trade Agreements have been directed to recommend to that Committee at an early date proposals with regard to the remaining four of these agreements. There is attached a detailed report on this subject prepared for me by the Trade Agree- ments Committee. Since this is the first re- port to the Congress under Section 6, the attached report contains an explanation of the development of the use of escape clauses and the extent to which they have been made applicable to an increasingly large number of concessions. Harry S. Truman note: The report is printed in House Document 328 (820! Cong., 2d sess.). For the President's statement upon signing the Trade Agreements Extension Act on June 16, 1951, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 126. II Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 1 of 1952: Bureau of Internal Revenue. January 14, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and provid- ing for reorganizations in the Bureau of In- ternal Revenue of the Department of the Treasury. A comprehensive reorganization of that Bureau is necessary both to increase the ef- ficiency of its operations and to provide better machinery for assuring honest and impartial administration of the internal reve- nue laws. The reorganization plan trans- mitted with this message is essential to 27 [n] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents accomplish the basic changes in the structure of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which are necessary for the kind of comprehensive reorganization that is now required. By bringing additional personnel in the Bureau of Internal Revenue under the merit system, Reorganization Plan No. 1 likewise removes what the Commission on Orga- nization of the Executive Branch of the Gov- ernment described as "one of the chief handicaps to effective organization of the Department . . . ." It is my determination to maintain the highest standards of integrity and efficiency in the Federal service. While those stand- ards have been observed faithfully by all but a relatively few public servants, the be- trayal of their trust by those few demands the strongest corrective action. The most vigorous efforts are being and will continue to be made to expose and punish every Government employee who misuses his official position. But we must do even more than this. We must correct every defect in organization that contributes to inefficient management and thus affords the opportunity for improper conduct. The thorough reorganization of the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue which I propose will be of great help in accomplishing all of those ends. It is an integral part of a pro- gram to prevent improper conduct in public service, to protect the Government from in- sidious influence peddlers and favor seekers, to expose and punish wrongdoers, and to improve the management and efficiency of the executive branch. I am confident that the Congress and the public are as deeply and earnestly concerned as I am that the public business be conducted entirely upon a basis of fairness, integrity and efficiency. I therefore hope that the Congress will give speedy approval to Re- organization Plan No. 1, in order that we may move ahead rapidly in achieving the reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The task of collecting the internal reve- nue has expanded enormously within the past decade. This expansion has been oc- casioned by the necessary additional taxation brought on by World War II and essential post-war programs. In fiscal year 1940, tax collections made by the Bureau of Internal Revenue were slightly over 5^ billions of dollars; in 195 1, they totaled almost 50% bil- lions. In 1940, 19 million tax returns were filed; in 1951, 82 million. In 1940, there were 22,000 employees working for the Bu- reau; in 1 95 1, there were 57,000. Throughout this tremendous growth, the structure of the revenue collecting organiza- tion has remained substantially unchanged. The present field structure of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is comprised of more than 200 field offices which report directly to Washington. Those 200 offices carry out their functions through more than 2,000 suboffices and posts of duty throughout the country. The Washington office now pro- vides operating supervision, guidance, and control over the principal field offices through ten separate divisions, thus further adding to the complexities of administration. Since the end of World War II, many procedural improvements have been made in the Bureau's operations. The use of auto- matic machines has been greatly increased. The handling of cases has been simplified. One major advance is represented by the recently completed arrangements to expedite criminal prosecutions in tax fraud cases. In these cases, field representatives of the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue will make recom- mendations for criminal prosecutions directly to the Department of Justice. These pro- cedural changes have increased the Bureau's efficiency and have made it possible for the Bureau to carry its enormously increased work load. However, improvements in pro- cedure cannot meet the need for organiza- tional changes. Part of the authority necessary to make a comprehensive reorganization was provided in Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, which was one of several uniform plans giv- ing department heads fuller authority over internal organizations throughout their de- 28 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 14 [11] partments. The studies of the Secretary of the Treasury have culminated since that time in a plan for extensive reorganization and modernization of the Bureau. However, his existing authority is not broad enough to permit him to effectuate all of the basic features of the plan he has developed. The principal barrier to effective organiza- tion and administration of the Bureau of Internal Revenue which Plan No. 1 removes is the archaic statutory office of collector of internal revenue. Since the collectors are not appointed and cannot be removed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or the Secretary of the Treasury, and since the col- lectors must accommodate themselves to local political situations, they are not fully re- sponsive to the control of their superiors in the Treasury Department. Residence re- quirements prevent moving a collector from one collection district to another, either to promote impartiality and fairness or to ad- vance collectors to more important positions. Uncertainties of tenure add to the difficulty of attracting to such offices persons who are well versed in the intricacies of the revenue laws and possessed of broad-gauged admin- istrative ability. It is appropriate and desirable that major political offices in the executive branch of the Government be filled by persons who are appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. On the other hand, the technical nature of much of the Government's work today makes it equally appropriate and desirable that posi- tions of other types be in the professional career service. The administration of our internal revenue laws at the local level calls for positions in the latter category. Instead of the present organization built around the offices of politically-appointed collectors of internal revenue, Plan No. 1 will make it possible for the Secretary of the Treasury to establish not to exceed twenty- five district offices. Each of these offices will be headed by a District Commissioner who will be responsible to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and will have full re- sponsibility for administering all internal revenue activities within a designated area. In addition, all essential collection, enforce- ment, and appellate functions can be pro- vided for in each local area and under one roof so far as is practicable. It is not pro- posed to discontinue any essential facilities which now exist in any local areas. Rather, the facilities will be extended and the service to taxpayers improved. These new arrange- ments should make it possible for the indi- vidual taxpayer to conduct his business with the Bureau much more conveniently and expeditiously. In addition to making possible greatly improved service to the taxpayer, the estab- lishment of the district offices will provide opportunity in the field service of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for the development of high caliber administrators with experience in all phases of revenue administration. These offices will be the backbone of a mod- ern streamlined pattern of organization and operations with clear and direct chan- nels of responsibility and supervision from the lowest field office to the Commissioner, and through him to the Secretary of the Treasury. The creation of this new frame- work of district offices is a necessary step in carrying out the over-all reorganization of the Bureau. Plan No. 1 also makes it possible to pro- vide a new framework of supervisory offices in the headquarters of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Under Plan No. 1, the offices of Deputy Commissioner, Special Deputy Com- missioner, and Assistant Commissioner are abolished. Three Assistant Commissioners, all in the classified civil service, are author- ized, and will be available to perform such functions as may be assigned to them. The intention of the Secretary of the Treasury under the comprehensive reorganization is to utilize one Assistant Commissioner to assist the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in supervising the operations of the district offices, another Assistant Commissioner to aid in the preparation of technical rulings and decisions, and the third Assistant Com- 55-672—66- 29 [n] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents missioner to supervise for the Commissioner the inspection activities of the Bureau. Two additional advantages will be ob- tained when the reorganization around this new framework is completed. First, the strong inspection service which the Secretary is establishing will keep the work of the Bureau under close and continu- ous observation. Working under the direct control of the Commissioner of Internal Rev- enue, it will be responsible for promptly detecting and investigating any irregu- larities. Second, the new pattern of organization will strengthen and clarify lines of respon- sibility throughout the Bureau, thus simpli- fying and making more effective and uniform the management control of the or- ganization. This is essential in any effort to provide our principal revenue collection agency the best possible administration. In order to eliminate Presidential appoint- ment and Senatorial confirmation with re- spect to the Assistant General Counsel for the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and in order to provide a method of appointment comparable to that obtaining in the case of other assistant general counsel of the De- partment of the Treasury, Plan No. 1 abol- ishes that office and provides in lieu thereof a new office of Assistant General Counsel with appointment under the classified civil service. The success of the reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue will to a con- siderable extent depend upon the ability to attract the best qualified persons to the key positions throughout the Bureau. In order to do so, it is necessary to make provision tor more adequate salaries for such key posi- tions. Plan No. 1 establishes in the Bureau of Internal Revenue a maximum of 70 offices with titles determined by the Secretary of the Treasury. Those offices are in addition to the offices with specific titles also provided for in Plan No. 1 and to any positions estab- lished under other authority vested in the Department of the Treasury. The compen- sation of these officials will be fixed under the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, but without regard to the numerical limita- tions on positions set forth in section 505 of that Act. This provision will enable the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, or the President, as the case may be, to fix rates of pay for those offices in excess of the rates established in the Classification Act of 1949 for Grade GS-15 whenever the stand- ards of the classification laws so permit. All organizational changes under Plan No. 1 will be put into effect as soon as it is possible to do so without disrupting the continued collection of revenue. Plan No. 1 will in any event be effective in its entirety no later than December 1, 1952. The taking effect of the reorganizations provided for in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 will make possible many benefits in improved organization and operations which may be expected to produce substantial sav- ings in future years. Those savings should not be expected to be reflected in an im- mediate reduction in expenditure by the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue but in an improved service to the public and a more efficient collection of revenue. It should be emphasized that abolition by Plan No. 1 of the offices of collectors and others will in no way prejudice any right or potential right of any taxpayer. The abolition of offices by Plan No. 1 will not abolish any rights, privileges, powers, duties, immunities, liabilities, obligations, or other attributes of those offices except as they relate to matters of appointment, tenure, and compensation inconsistent with Plan No. 1. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949, all of these attributes of office will attach to the office to which the functions of the abolished office are delegated by the Secretary of the Treasury. After investigation, I have found and here- by declare that each reorganization included in Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in Section 2(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949. I have found and hereby declare that it is 30 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 14 [12] necessary to include in the accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 1, by reason of re- organizations made thereby, provisions for the appointment and compensation of the officers specified therein. The rates of com- pensation fixed for these officers are not in excess of those which I have found to prevail in respect of comparable officers in the execu- tive branch. I cannot emphasize too strongly the im- portance which should be attached to the reorganization plan that I am now trans- mitting to the Congress. The fair and efficient administration of the Federal in- ternal revenue laws is of vital concern to every citizen. All of us have a right to in- sist that the Bureau of Internal Revenue be provided with the finest organization that can be devised. All of us are entitled to have that organization manned by personnel who get their jobs and keep them solely because of their own integrity and com- petence. This reorganization plan will be a major step in achieving those objectives. Harry S. Truman note: Reorganization Plan i of 1952 is published in the U.S. Statutes at Large (66 Stat. 823) and in the 1 949-1953 Compilation of title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (p. 1019). It became effec- tive on March 15, 1952. See also Items 1, 53, 59. 12 Special Message to the Congress on Synthetic Rubber. January 14, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: On January 14, 1950, pursuant to the pro- visions of the Rubber Act of 1948, I trans- mitted to the Congress my recommendations concerning the synthetic rubber industry in the United States, together with a report on the subject from the Assistant to the Presi- dent. That report included a history of the synthetic rubber industry, an analysis of its current status, and a comprehensive review of the problems of disposal of the Govern- ment-owned plants. This message, there- fore, is limited to consideration of the char- acter and significance of important changes during the past two years. Six months after my previous report on synthetic rubber was prepared, and one day after I signed the bill extending the Rubber Act of 1948 until June 30, 1952, North Korean communist forces crossed the 38th parallel in Korea. Less than six months later, when these invaders had been hurled back, Chinese communist forces crossed into Korea from Manchuria. The communist aggression in Korea has demonstrated to the world beyond any doubt the true intentions of the Soviet leaders, and their willingness to use armed attack, if nec- essary, to accomplish their objectives. The Korean invasion has made it eminently plain that the entire free world lives in the con- stant danger of further communist aggres- sion. United Nations successes in Korea have been great, but the threat of a third world war is still very real and very menacing. To meet this threat, this nation, together with the other nations allied with us, has undertaken a vast preparedness program. This program involves raising and equip- ping prompdy sufficient armed forces to resist aggression if it should come, and ex- panding our mobilization base so that we will be able to shift quickly to a full war footing if that should prove necessary. This involves, in turn, assuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of the critical ma- terials needed for defense production. The problem is particularly acute in the case of rubber. Most of the world's natural rubber is produced in Southeast Asia where communist subversion and sabotage are now a serious problem. Communist invasion of these areas is an ever-present possibility. 31 [12] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents A stockpile of natural rubber is a partial protection against loss of production in these areas. I am happy to report that in the past two years, despite communist activities in rubber-producing areas, natural rubber pro- duction has been maintained at high levels, and despite soaring world demand for rub- ber, we have made substantial progress in accumulating a natural rubber stockpile. Our minimum objectives will soon be met, and if international conditions do not worsen, it may be possible to begin soon to taper of! our stockpile purchasing of rubber. Our accelerated rate of stockpiling in the past two years has been made possible largely by the existence of our synthetic rubber in- dustry. Government operation of the syn- thetic rubber plants over the past two years has been highly successful. Total produc- tion in Government-owned plants has been increased from an annual rate of 270,000 tons in January 1950 to a present annual rate of 850,000 tons, and we should be able to reach 950,000 tons within a few months. This is a remarkable record and reflects credit both on the Government officials di- recting the program and the private concerns reactivating and operating the plants for the Government. In reviewing the Government's synthetic rubber activities, it is important to distin- guish between GR-S, the general purpose rubber used chiefly in tires but also in many other products, and butyl, a special purpose rubber used primarily in inner tubes. GR-S was being produced in Govern- ment-owned plants in January 1950 at an annual rate of 217,000 tons. In the spring of 1950, production was increased to meet rising demand, and following the Korean invasion, all stand-by facilities were reacti- vated and expansions of capacity of existing plants were undertaken. At present, Gov- ernment production of GR-S is at an an- nual rate of 770,000 tons, and is expected to rise to an annual rate of 860,000 tons by the third quarter of this year. During most of the past year and a half, because of the time required to reactivate stand-by facilities, it was not possible to in- crease production fast enough to meet rising demand. In recent months, however, pro- duction has kept ahead of demand and allo- cation controls over GR-S have recently been terminated. It is anticipated that produc- tion in 1952 will not only meet all domestic demands but will also provide a substantial margin for export, thus facilitating stock- pile purchases of natural rubber. Increased costs, particularly the high costs of feedstocks produced from alcohol which have been required to achieve the present levels of GR-S production, have necessitated increasing the price of GR-S from 18 Y2 cents a pound to 26 cents in order to operate the GR-S facilities, as a whole, without loss. Two technological developments have im- proved the ability of GR-S to compete with natural rubber. First, "cold rubber," a type of GR-S, which was a relatively new prod- uct two years ago, has proved to be superior to natural rubber in most tire treads. Sec- ond, it has been found that low-cost oil can be added, as an extender, in the production of GR-S, thus introducing important cost savings with no significant change in qual- ity. Research investigations now in process promise further advances. As a result of these technological develop- ments, GR-S is in a better position to com- pete with natural rubber than it was two years ago. It is still probable, however, that GR-S could not compete for bulk uses with natural rubber offered at significantly lower prices over a considerable period of time. Butyl production, in January 1950, was at an annual rate of 52,000 tons in the two Government-owned butyl plants. Present production is about 80,000 tons and capacity of the plants is being expanded to an annual rate of 90,000 tons by the middle of this year. Because of increased costs, the price was in- creased in December 1950 from iSY2 cents to 20% cents a pound in order to permit continued operation without loss. Demand for butyl has far exceeded pro- duction since Korea. This rising demand was the cumulative result of the high level 32 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 14 [12] of production of automotive tubes, the high price of natural rubber relative to butyl, and restrictions on the use of natural rubber. Growing recognition of the superiority of butyl over natural rubber for inner tubes, and the potential usefulness of butyl in non- transportation products, indicate that de- mand for butyl will probably continue to exceed capacity output of the two plants. Research in butyl rubber has been entirely privately financed. A number of new ap- plications for this rubber, now the lowest priced new rubber available, have been de- veloped. In particular, research on all-butyl passenger tires has yielded very promising results which could result in a many-fold increase in demand for butyl. The experience of the last two years rein- forces the conclusions of the 1950 report, to the effect that butyl is in a strong posi- tion to compete with natural rubber. Recommendations The fact of open conflict and the demon- strated threat of further aggression, the fact that our stockpile goals have not yet been fully met, and the fact that we are fully utilizing the available capacity for producing synthetic rubber, require that we avoid ac- tions which could interfere with continued production of synthetic rubber to meet all our needs. My recommendations are pre- pared with this objective in mind. As I pointed out two years ago, difficult disposal problems result from the large num- ber of plants in the GR-S segment of the Government synthetic rubber program. The possibility of a need for Government support of GR-S for security purposes in the event of a sharp decline in the price of natural rubber creates further problems. The 1950 report also pointed out that among the main advantages of Government owner- ship are the efficiencies and economies of operation of the entire GR-S industry as an integrated unit. These could probably not be fully maintained if the plants were owned by a number of independent companies. Disposal of the GR-S facilities might result in occasional losses of production because of the loss of coordinated operation of the GR-S and feedstock facilities and the loss of the flexibility of integrated operations. The possibility of such losses must be avoided under present circumstances, when maxi- mum production is essential. This factor is not present in the case of the two butyl facilities. Each of these facil- ities is a highly integrated plant, and disposal should involve no significant interference with plant operation. One reason for disposing of the butyl facil- ities is currently more relevant than it was when the 1950 report was written. As noted above, the demand for butyl is con- siderably above the capacity of the existing plants. Additional butyl capacity would be highly advantageous. Although there is nothing in the present law to prevent private firms from constructing a butyl plant, they are reluctant to do so when it means entering into competition with the Government oper- ating on a "no profit-no loss" basis. It would obviously be desirable to create circumstances which would stimulate private business in- terest in building additional facilities. Two years ago I recommended that the Congress authorize transfer of the Govern- ment's rubber facilities to private ownership and recommended a disposal plan. It is still my belief that it would be in the national interest to have the authority to dispose of the synthetic rubber plants. For the reasons I have just given, however, and in consider- ation of the action taken by the Congress in June 1950 in extending the Rubber Act of 1948, it is my conclusion that disposal of GR-S facilities should be temporarily de- ferred. I therefore recommend that the Rubber Act of 1948, with respect to GR-S, be extended for another two years. With re- spect to butyl, I should like to suggest that the Congress give consideration to author- izing disposal of these plants according to the general principles outlined in my previous report, and to the termination of authority 33 [i2J Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents to require the consumption of butyl rubber. I believe, however, that under either alterna- tive— disposal with security safeguards, or continued Government ownership — the na- tional security will be fully protected. I have been so advised by the Secretary of Defense. I have consulted the Chairman and mem- bers of the National Security Resources Board in the preparation of this report. Harry S. Truman note: On June 23, 1952, the President approved a bill extending the Rubber Act of 1948 until March 31, 1954 (66 Stat. 154). For the President's special message to the Congress on synthetic rubber, released on January 16, 1950, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 13. The report by John R. Steelman, The Assistant to the President, entitled "A Report to the President on the Main- tenance of the Synthetic Rubber Industry in the United States and Disposal of the Government- Owned Synthetic Rubber Facilities," was transmitted with the message (see House Document 448, 81st Cong., 2d sess.). 13 Message to the Congress Transmitting the First Annual Report of the National Science Foundation. January 15, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith the first annual report of the National Science Foundation. No thinking citizen can fail to recognize the swift rise of science in the last decade to a point where it exerts an enormous influ- ence in the structure of world power and peace. No one can successfully dispute the importance of maintaining and increasing in this country the vitality of the basic re- search upon which all technological develop- ment— and therefore our economic progress and national security — is dependent. The legislation creating the National Science Foundation arose out of the experience in the last war that only by continued support of basic research can this nation maintain its leadership. It resulted from a bipartisan recognition of these facts, and was almost unanimously supported throughout the Nation. The Foundation is much more than a new executive agency added to those already in existence with a research mission. It was conceived as a much-needed keystone in the structure of the national research program. Its principal task is to appraise the rapid growth of research activity, both public and private, and to recommend the broad goals toward which this massive effort should be channeled. In addition, the Foundation will support those areas of basic research and scientific training where the needs are most acute and will ultimately assume major re- sponsibility for the Federal Government's support of basic research through grant or contract. As long as the Federal Govern- ment continues to be the largest factor in the national research effort, it must frankly face the responsibility to insure that this effort is conceived and executed soundly and effectively. The results to be obtained from the op- eration of the Foundation far outweigh its cost. The Foundation's annual budget rep- resents no more than a small fraction of the annual Federal outlays for research and de- velopment. The funds involved represent a long-term investment in the national secu- rity no less than the funds presently being invested in the expansion of productive ca- pacity to carry us through a long period of partial mobilization. Harry S. Truman note: The report is printed in House Document 329 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). 34 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] 14 Statement by the President on the 69th Anniversary of the Civil Service System. January 16, 1952 TODAY is the 69th birthday of the com- petitive civil service in our Nation. We have come a long way since 1883; 93 percent of all Federal workers are now under civil service. They hold their jobs by virtue of having won them in open competition with their fellow citizens. They hold their jobs under the merit system. This is a fitting time for all of us to reflect upon the great contribution and tremendous importance of the civil service to our na- tional well-being. It is perhaps especially fitting now because some people are indulg- ing in indiscriminate criticism of all public servants, because of the actions of a few. The overwhelming majority of our Federal workers are devoted, hard-working, honest, loyal servants of the people. They deserve our fullest recognition and support. I have said this before. It cannot be said too frequently. This anniversary of the civil service is a good day for those of us who serve the pub- lic to rededicate ourselves to that service to the utmost of our capacities. It is our privi- lege to work for all the people of this coun- try. It is our responsibility to serve them faithfully and well. Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report. January 16, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: The past year has been marked by great gains in our basic economic strength. These gains have enabled us to move forward to- ward our security objectives with far less strain upon the economy than would other- wise have been possible. It is the tragic necessity of our time that we and other peace-loving peoples must de- vote so large a part of our resources to build- ing up our military strength. But it is be- cause we seek peace — a just and lasting peace — that we have shouldered this burden. If, despite our best efforts, another world conflict should come, the cost would be be- yond description. If we succeed in the effort for peace, our productive ability will enable us to achieve a material well-being never before known. This effort for peace finds the people of the United States substantially in agreement. We all know that we must stand firm against aggression, build up our defenses, cooperate with other free peoples, and hold the door open for the fair settlement of in- ternational disputes. Our basic interna- tional policy is backed by national unity. But our foreign policy cannot succeed, if there is excessive division on domestic mat- ters. Economic issues and international issues are now inseparably connected. It is a fundamental fact that the defense program itself, and our aid to friendly nations, must be related to the capacity of our economy. If we overestimated the strength of our econ- omy, we could weaken our power to resist aggression. If we underestimated its strength, we could fall short of doing the things that can and must be done to prevent aggression. Without continued economic growth, the defense burden could make us weaker year by year. Without economic stability and control of inflation, the resulting hardships could disastrously affect millions of our peo- ple. Without agreement on economic fundamentals at home, group conflicts or political conflicts could weaken our ability to withstand the communist threat. It is only natural that the scope and opera- tion of a program of this magnitude should evoke some disagreement and criticism. 35 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents This can be constructive. But it would be most unfortunate if, in those economic mat- ters which affect our world security, we were divided by narrow partisanship rather than united by the desire to find the best possible solution. To agree upon wise policies, it is essential to know and understand the facts. These facts are available, and they are compelling. They show that our basic economic strength is greater than it was a year ago. They point the way to the necessary policies that we should follow. They reveal why all of us can and need to stand upon common ground. THE NATION'S ECONOMY GROWS STRONGER The decision to resist aggression in Korea was not the first postwar evidence of Ameri- can strength which confounded the commu- nist imperialists. The first and equally im- portant evidence came earlier, when the American economy after World War II, in- stead of slipping into a depression, moved forward to greater strength. Comparing the year 1947 with the year 1950, before our economy was gready af- fected by the new defense program, civilian employment rose from 58 million to 60 mil- lion. Unemployment during those years averaged about 2.7 million, which was low by previous peacetime standards. Our total annual output, measured in uniform (1951) prices, rose from about 270 billion dollars to about 300 billion. This growth in our economy accelerated rapidly after the Korean outbreak. In the year and a half since then, our annual rate of total output, in terms of 195 1 prices, has risen by about 30 billion dollars, or 10 per- cent, to 330 billion dollars. By the end of 195 1, civilian employment mounted to about 61 million, and unemployment was about 1.7 million. Thus, comparing 1947 with the current situation, the annual output of the economy, in constant prices, has risen by about 60 bil- lion dollars. Total civilian employment is now about 3 million higher than 4 years ago. This expansion of our economy has oc- curred because the American people have never lost faith in progress. They have re- jected the idea that we have reached, or will ever reach, the last frontiers of our growth. Businessmen, workers, and farmers have dared to produce more and more, confident that we had the ingenuity and the imagina- tion to utilize this increasing abundance. They have not been held back by the fear that we would get into a depression by not knowing how to make use of the blessing of full production and full employment. An expanding economy has paid particu- larly rich dividends, in helping us to assume new burdens of world responsibility. In 1947, we justly regarded ourselves as hav- ing reached remarkable levels of produc- tion and productivity, compared with any prewar year. Our total output, measured in 195 1 prices, was more than 90 billion dol- lars higher than in 1939, and more than 100 billion above 1929. But since 1947, the 60- billion-dollar increase in annual output has been greater than the total cost of the se- curity program in 1951. The high level of production helped to hold inflation in check during most of 1951, despite a rapidly rising security program. The growth of produc- tion during the last few years now enables us to carry the security program without undue impairment of the rest of the econ- omy. Despite the defense burden, the past year witnessed a production of tools, fac- tories, automobiles, housing, household goods, and food that was very high — and, in some cases, record-breaking. In the light of this experience, we should hold fast to the principle of an expanding economy. During 1952, we can and should lift employment by another 1Y3 million. Some further reduction in unemployment may be possible, despite the fact that addi- tional defense-created unemployment in some local areas appears inevitable. We can and should lift our total output by at least an- other 5 percent, or by 15 to 20 billion dol- lars. We should adopt policies which pave 36 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 16 [15] the way for a continuation or acceleration of these productive gains in the years further ahead. Such progress will have many advantages. It will give us even greater strength to meet any aggressor. If the world situation stabi- lizes, so that we can after 2 or 3 years taper off the defense program, we will then be pro- ducing enough to remove many unpleasant controls without risking inflation, and to have a higher standard of living than we had even in 195 1. And if we succeed in attaining a durable peace, our expanding economy can double our standard of living within a gen- eration. Viewing the next 2 hard years, the produc- tive capacity of the United States leaves no room for faintheartedness or defeatism about our ability to carry whatever necessary bur- dens the international situation may impose upon us. But we cannot afford to be com- placent. In moving ahead confidently to what must be done, we should not overlook the points of weakness or vulnerability in our economic system. Our resources are bounti- ful, but we must make the most of them by careful use. HOW WE USE OUR STRENGTH Economic strength, in these times, is not only a matter of size. If we should devote too much of our productive power to build- ing up our standard of living, while the com- munists build up their armaments, we could fall far behind despite our immensely greater economic potential. We must use our strength in the right way. In a total war, our course would be plain. We would build up our striking forces as rapidly as possible, and sacrifice all else to that purpose. In a fully peaceful situation, our course would also be plain. We would reduce armaments, and devote our full re- sources to the pursuit of what we count as the good things of life. But for the time being, and perhaps for a long time, we must sail a middle course in an uncertain sea. The whole mobilization effort is based upon the economic strategy of following this middle course. This means keeping strong all three components of our total strength — military, industrial, and civilian. We are making allowance for the possibility that war could come suddenly. But we are also mak- ing allowance for the possibility of a long period of international tension without total war. It is a mistake to oversimplify this problem by calling it a conflict between guns and butter. We must strive for the amounts and kinds of "guns," of "tools," and of "butter" which will do most to advance our security and well-being in the long run. While too slow a defense build-up would imperil the Nation, too rapid a build-up also has dangers. It could burden us with a mass of out-of-date weapons, deplete our economy, and weaken public support for a program which may be needed over a long period. If the build-up of our industrial capacity were too slow, the very foundation of our economic and military strength would be impaired. But if our industrial build-up were too fast or were made indiscriminately, it could feed an inflationary boom by placing too heavy a demand upon scarce materials. If we maintained civilian consumption at too lush a level under current world condi- tions, we would be deceiving ourselves tragically. But excessive cutbacks of civilian supplies and essential public services would weaken the ultimate source of our collective strength — 155 million Americans. The defense mobilization effort thus far has been based upon this rounded concept of total national strength for the long pull. Since the Korean outbreak, the size of our armed forces has more than doubled. De- liveries of military goods, including military construction, have totaled 20 billion dollars. Nearly 5 1/2 million workers are now engaged direcdy or indirectly in defense production. Government outlays for the major national security programs — the military services, atomic energy, stockpiling, military and eco- nomic aid abroad, Defense Production Act programs, civil defense, and merchant ma- rine activities — have increased from an an- 37 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents nual rate of 17 billion dollars to about 45 billion. While increasing these major security pro- grams, we have also been rapidly building up our productive economic strength. Since the Korean outbreak, private investment in producers' equipment and nonresidential construction has averaged 37 billion dollars a year, compared with a 32-billion-dollar rate from 1947 through the middle of 1950, 14 billion in 1939, and 22 billion in 1929, all measured at the 195 1 price level. In 1951, steelmaking capacity increased 4 percent and electric power capacity 10 percent, and the year's steel output of 105 million tons ex- ceeded the previous record by 9 percent. Aluminum output at present is running 17 percent higher than during the middle of 1950. Additions to farm equipment and larger use of fertilizers have made it possible to set a realistic 1952 agricultural production goal above any previous year's output, and almost 50 percent higher than the Nation's average farm production in the years before World War II. This growth in the productive sector of our economy indicates that neither the size of the military build-up, nor the high level of taxation enacted to finance that build-up, has repressed business investment initiative. Instead, the problem has been to hold the expansion down to noninflationary propor- tions. Despite the great demand for resources to enlarge the military build-up and to expand the industrial mobilization base, the year and a half since Korea has witnessed an extremely high level of general civilian sup- plies. While per capita consumption in constant dollars declined about 3 percent from the pre-Korean level to the final quar- ter of 1 95 1, this was mainly because of a fall in demand for durable goods. Considering the increase in consumers' stocks of durable goods since the end of the war, and the steady improvement in housing accommoda- tions, it seems clear that living standards have thus far been rising. Compared with 1939, per capita consumption expenditures, after adjustment for price rises, have in- creased about one-third. There have been some shortcomings to set off against these evidences of progress. Bottlenecks and shortages, and problems of design, have delayed production of some im- portant military items. Some of the mate- rials expansion programs have not moved forward as rapidly as we had anticipated. As was to be expected in the first stages of a mobilization effort, the development of smoothly operating administrative machin- ery took time to accomplish. In some areas of the country, although not generally, dis- locations have resulted in unemployment and business hardship. Furthermore, par- ticularly during the first months after the Korean aggression, a rapid inflationary upsurge caused undue hardship to many families. Nonetheless, the facts which have been recited make it clear that the Nation has been gaining steadily and vigorously in eco- nomic strength. Moreover, the utilization of our resources, under the mobilization program, has kept the three major compo- nents of our strength in reasonably balanced proportion. But the defense program is still in the build-up stage; the main effort lies ahead. This will impose new strains upon the econ- omy. It calls for improvement in existing programs, and new adjustments to meet new events. THE HARDER JOB AHEAD As 1952 opens, we face a period during which the burden of the defense program will increase greatly — both in absolute terms, and relative to the total size and strength of the economy. This increasing burden, while indispensable to our security, will place an additional strain upon our manpower, our physical plant, our natural resources, and our standards of living. It will ines- capably cause Government expenditures to rise gready, and, even with the additional taxes I am recommending, it is estimated 38 Harry S. Truman, J952 Jan. 16 [15] that there will be a large deficit this year and a larger one next year. This deficit, along with the other strains upon the economy, will increase inflationary dangers. We must analyze these strains carefully, and decide how best to meet them. With sound poli- cies, there is no doubt that we shall be able to meet them. Government outlays for the major security programs are estimated to rise from a current annual rate of 45 billion dollars to almost 65 billion by the end of this calendar year. As a proportion of total output, the increase will be from 14 percent to more than 18 percent. These over-all figures do not fully portray the impact. In 1952, more than a third of the output of the construction and metal- working industries will be taken for military purposes. Military production and con- struction will claim more than a fourth of our copper supply, and half of our aluminum supply. Though the major expansion will take place this year, the program which I am sub- mitting will call for a further increase in the rate of security outlays during calendar 1953. We cannot hope that security program ex- penditures will start declining toward a lower rate until 1954. But the most difficult problems will be within the next 12 months. After we cross this hurdle, continued expansion of our raw materials base, and slackening of military requirements for materials, will considerably ease the strain. In the meantime, however, it will be necessary to curtail the use of criti- cal materials for many peacetime products. Serious problems will be faced by some smaller manufacturing firms, unable to con- vert their plants to defense production or to find substitute materials. I want to direct special attention to that part of our security effort which is aimed at increasing the strength of other free nations. Most of our aid is going to Western Europe. During the 2 years of the Marshall Plan prior to the Korean outbreak, industrial produc- tion in Western European countries rose 30 percent. Nevertheless, their recovery was far from complete when they had to under- take heavy new defense burdens. Since June 1950, they have added substantially to their armed forces and have more than doubled their defense expenditures. While their industrial production has risen another 15 percent during this period, it still is far below the level required for defense and for economic stability. The Western European countries can shoulder only part of their heavier defense outlays through increased productivity. In addition, cuts must be made in their domes- tic consumption, which only recently has been restored to the prewar levels, and in capital investment, which is needed to build long-run economic strength. Exports, which are necessary if self-support is to be achieved, are also being limited. If these countries tried to produce or buy abroad, solely with their own resources, all the goods needed for defense, the probable result would be drastic cuts in living standards, intolerable inflation, and grave danger to political stability. It is only a matter of intelligent self-interest on our part to add something to the resources of these countries. And it is essential for us to understand that, whether we make this addition in the form of "military aid" or "economic aid," the objective and the func- tion are the same: common security. When we supply military goods, some of the most dangerous cutbacks in European civilian production can be avoided. When we supply economic assistance, some European pro- ductive facilities and foreign exchange are released for defense. The form of aid that best serves the purpose in a particular case is not something which can be decided in the abstract. It depends upon the changing cir- cumstances in the individual European countries. We are also providing aid to the nations in the Near East and Africa, in Asia and the Pacific, and to the other American Republics. Much of it is military aid. A somewhat lesser amount — but one which has been steadily increasing — is being directed to at- tacking the more general problems resulting 39 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents from underdevelopment. Chronic poverty now affects the ability of some of these coun- tries to maintain independence in the face of threatened aggression or subversion. This calls for a demonstration — by positive and sustained action by the free nations as a whole — that the economic aspirations of un- derdeveloped countries can best be realized in association with the rest of the free world. Our reliance on other nations of the free world is not simply a matter of combined military strength. Our productive potential is vitally dependent on supplies of critical raw materials — particularly metals — coming from abroad. We are joining with the other free countries in efforts to encourage the production and achieve a fair distribution of such materials. In addition, we must undertake in 1952 some other efforts which will make us stronger for the long pull, even though they will increase immediate strains. Steelmak- ing capacity, already above 108 million tons, is to be expanded to more than 120 million by 1954, with related expansions of iron, coke, and ore-producing facilities. The aluminum program should double the mid- 1950 rate of output by 1954. Electric power capacity is scheduled to expand 13 percent this year, and a 40-percent expansion by the end of 1954 is proposed. Petroleum refinery capacity is scheduled to expand about 14 percent between now and the end of 1953. These and the other high-priority Govern- ment-assisted industrial expansion programs will absorb this year about a quarter of the supply of copper available for civilian uses, and about one-third of the civilian supply of steel. There are also a few public programs which must be continued at fairly high levels or expanded, because they are essential to supply our defense requirements and to ex- pand our mobilization base. Federal ex- penditures for long-range conservation and development of natural resources must be adequate to assure maintenance of the re- source base, and to prevent the gradual de- terioration of this fundamental segment of our economy. Programs for conservation and development of minerals are being en- larged. Public electric power projects, which will make up about a fourth of the 30-mil- lion-kilowatt total expansion programmed for completion in the next 3 years, are going forward. Many of these public develop- ments are multi-purpose hydroelectric proj- ects, which also yield other important bene- fits. Initial development of certain hydro projects, which will be required in 4 or more years, must also go forward now. These various types of defense-related expansion — both military and civilian — will absorb scarce resources, such as steel and copper, at a much faster rate than we can expand the supply during the next 12 months or so. The meaning of this is simple: In order to accomplish what we cannot afford to do without, we must give up many of the things that we can afford to do without. It is even more true of 1952 than of 195 1 that we can- not have business as usual, consumer enjoy- ments as usual, or Government programs and services as usual. The demand for vital business expansion means that many nonessential forms of pri- vate investment must be deferred. The total of private investment in construc- tion and producers' equipment, which was close to 50 billion dollars in 1951, should be held in the neighborhood of 42 to 44 billion dollars in 1952. This will cause some hard- ships and dislocations, although we are doing our best to minimize them. But measured against earlier years, the general level of pri- vate investment, even outside of the indus- trial mobilization base, will be relatively high and profitable. The holding back of some less essential investment will be helpful im- mediately by reducing inflationary pressures; and helpful in the long run by creating back- logs of opportunity for investment when the security program levels off. The American consumer — which means all Americans — will also have to relinquish some of the enjoyments which would be pos- sible if the cost of security were not so high. 40 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] The over-all level of consumer supplies, par- ticularly food and clothing, should remain at least as high as last year. Such items as food and clothing do not compete sharply with the defense program or with the indus- trial build-up. But housing starts, which were 1.4 million in 1950 and about 1.1 mil- lion in 195 1, will have to be reduced to 850,000 units or less. And to reach even this number will require substantial econo- mies in the use of scarce materials. Less than 4 million new passenger cars will be made, compared with 5.3 million last year. Household appliances, radios, and television sets must also be cut back from recent levels. Current production of most metal-using du- rables will be below the level of the 1947-49 period. But, with very high existing stocks of these durables in the hands of consumers, supplies will be ample to meet all essential needs. During a national emergency, when busi- ness and consumers are being called upon for larger sacrifices, we cannot expect to have normal peacetime Government services. This presents a difficult problem, because world conditions since 1940 have required us to hold many types of outlays below the needs of an expanding economy and a grow- ing population. For example, measured in uniform prices, construction expenditures for both highways and natural resources, ex- cluding atomic energy, were considerably larger in 1939 than in any year since. New public construction expenditures for these and other development programs, including education, health, and housing, have fallen from about 3 percent of the gross national product in 1939 to less than 2 percent in 195 1. After World War II, the American people properly looked to their Federal, State, and local governments to resume certain pro- grams and services devoted to their well- being. We were able to make substantial progress for some time, but in the present defense emergency we have necessarily had to cut down again on many government programs. We must continue to hold back on the construction of hospitals. Total construc- tion expenditures for schools, although at record levels, must be held below the real need. New natural resource development projects, including flood control, navigation, and reclamation projects, are being post- poned unless they are essential because of electric power or other urgently needed fea- tures. Low rent public housing starts in 1952, as in 195 1, will be well below the levels contemplated in recent housing legislation. The postponement of these programs is unfortunate. But like deferred business in- vestment, it may have some good effects later on. When the defense program levels off, the resumption of these programs can help to take up any slack. The year ahead, and 1953 also, will pose more difficult problems in the management of the fiscal affairs of the Federal Govern- ment than any we have faced since World War II. Total budget expenditures by the end of the fiscal year 1953, ending on June 30, 1953, will be running at an annual rate between 85 and 90 billion dollars. The se- curity effort, together with veterans' services and benefits, and interest on the national debt — both, in the main, resulting from World War II — will comprise roughly 85 percent of total expenditures in the fiscal year 1953. The remainder reflects persistent ef- forts to bring other outlays to the lowest point consistent with recognition that a na- tion of 155 million people cannot survive through armament alone. For the fiscal year 1952, the total of Fed- eral expenditures is estimated at approxi- mately 71 billion dollars, and receipts at about 63 billion. While the resulting deficit is undesirable, it has not prevented effective economic stabilization during the past 10 months. But with expenditures for security programs rising sharply, a dangerously large deficit of close to twice that size is estimated for the fiscal year 1953, ^ there is no addi- tional taxation. Even with the additional taxes that I am recommending, the deficit will remain large, until the security program has passed its peak and tapers off, as we hope 41 [15] Jan. l6 Public Papers of the Presidents it can do in about 2 or 3 years. In this pe- riod, substantial problems will also arise in connection with the management of the national debt, and the financing and re- financing operations of the Treasury. Rising expenditures and rising deficits add to inflationary pressures. The expansion of defense production will cause the spendable incomes of consumers to rise during the year more than civilian supplies. Moreover, price and wage movements, responsive to the decisions of business and labor, could add fuel to the inflationary fires. Ample funds will be available to most businessmen to engage in excessive inventory buying, if they should desire to do so. There are large re- serves of liquid savings in the hands of con- sumers and business. Looking at the situation as a whole, how- ever, the essential security program neither imposes excessive strains upon the economy, nor makes it impossible to contain inflation. If we realize, as fully as possible, our pro- ductive potential, business investment and real consumption, while curtailed, will still be high, except when measured against the last 2 years — the highest in our history. Certainly these are not large sacrifices, in view of the dangers against which we must protect ourselves. Further, if the people as a whole are willing to avoid excesses and ex- travagances, the recent containment of infla- tion can be made more effective during this year. We contained inflation, under more difficult circumstances, during World War II, although we did not do a good enough job of forestalling postwar inflation. We must learn from past mistakes as well as from past successes. THE REAL MEANING OF ECONOMY True economy is desirable at all times. It is imperative during a national emergency. But, as shown by the foregoing review of events since 1947, true economy means con- serving and expanding the economic strength of the Nation as a whole. It can, therefore, be achieved only by recognizing all the basic factors in that strength — and not neglecting any of them. When we look at the whole picture, we find that true economy embraces two equally important elements: The first is the avoid- ance of unnecessary outlays; but the second, and equally important, is the making of necessary outlays. A nation which spent its resources foolishly would dissipate its strength. But a nation which was too timid or miserly in applying its resources to urgent needs would fail to build up its strength. We must exert every effort — through busi- ness action, consumer action, and govern- ment action — to avoid unnecessary outlays.. But we cannot by this method alone achieve world peace or a highly productive economy. The main reason for not spending on the things that we do not need, is to afford the things that we do need. We must hold defense outlays to the lowest levels consistent with safeguarding our na- tional security. This means constant weed- ing out of waste. But it would be false economy to cut the defense program below the requirements for our safety. Our economic and military aid to free nations banded with us against aggression must be kept under vigilant and continuous review. It must be coupled with assurance that the countries receiving it are doing their full share. But it would be false economy, after all our efforts since World War II to help rebuild economic life and maintain political stability in war-damaged countries, to reverse the process by weakening the aid program. We must recognize that strength or weakness at any point in the free world adds to strength or weakness at every point. It would not be true economy to spend a dollar for the common defense on one side of the Atlantic, when it would contribute more to the common defense if spent on the other side of the Atlantic. There has recently been growing apprecia- tion in the United States that the defense programs of the countries of Western Europe should not move so fast as to reduce stand- ards of living below a level consistent with 42 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] political stability and immunity against in- ternal subversion. Some adjustments are now being made to take account of this fact. But it would not be true economy, because some partners in a joint enterprise have not the resources to do all that would be de- sirable, for the strongest partner to relax from doing its best. I? our own security efforts, through their demand upon raw materials and their effect upon world prices, are imposing an excessive burden upon other nations, there are right and wrong ways to meet this problem. We are lessening the pressures upon prices and raw materials, not by relaxing our security program, but rather by cutting somewhat into nonessential consumption and invest- ment; by holding down domestic inflation through an effective anti-inflationary pro- gram; and by making cooperative efforts to share scarce materials and to stabilize inter- national prices. This is the right approach. The proposal to solve the whole problem by drastically cutting the security effort every- where is false economy — because the nub of the problem is to maintain a mutual security program which in total is adequate to the danger confronting us. It would be super- ficially easy — but disastrous — to reduce the defense strain by torpedoing the defense program. We must cut nonessential spending, both private and public, so that unnecessary short- ages and unnecessary inflation do not imperil the defense effort. But it would be false economy to repress the types of private and public investment which are building up our essential productive power. It would be false economy to set revenues at a far lower level than the Nation can well support under current circumstances, and then to say that the defense garment must be cut to the revenue cloth. A balanced budget, achieved the easy way by sacrificing the defense program and putting the balance of world power in the hands of the Kremlin, would be false economy. The sound course in these times is to base oudays upon essen- tial national needs, and then obtain the funds to cover these needs by current taxation inso- far as possible. But if the only choice is either to run a deficit of limited size and duration in the Federal budget, or to run a deficit in our national security effort, by far the lesser hazard now is to run a deficit in the budget. There is also a superficially easy way, and a genuinely sound way, to combat inflation. The superficially easy way would be to avoid inflation by reducing the security program below safe levels. The sound way is to achieve and maintain a strong and vigorous anti-inflationary program. TOP ISSUES FOR POLICY ACTION Policies to promote the success of the se- curity program, and to ease the burden upon the economy, were recommended to the Con- gress in 1950 and 1951, and, with some im- portant omissions, were adopted. We must apply these policies with maximum effective- ness. To do this, some legislative changes and additions are now desirable. Reaching our objectives for defense strength The military program which I am sub- mitting to the Congress calls for steady increases in military output during the next 18 months, and for continuance at a high level for at least an additional 12 months. Meeting these production schedules will re- quire for at least two more years the author- ity under the Defense Production Act for those controls which promptly channel scarce materials and tools into defense production. I urge the Congress to adhere to the sound policy it followed, in the original act, of not encumbering it with detailed prescriptions concerning how materials should be dis- tributed. The administering agencies need to exercise flexibility and discretion, based upon up-to-the-minute study, in order to avoid or remedy hardships upon business and workers whenever this can be done without hurting the defense program. Under the present law, we are administer- ing a system of priorities and allocations to 43 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents channel scarce materials into the most essen- tial uses. Stockpiles of strategic materials are being built up. While shortages of ma- terials are bound to cause many inconven- iences and some hardships, the Controlled Materials Plan operates to reduce these, and to promote the more important types of pro- duction while reducing the less important. The great expansion of productive facili- ties for defense makes it essential that there be the widest possible distribution of defense business, with particular emphasis upon maintenance of free competitive enterprise. The Government has for a long time, par- ticularly through the leadership of the De- partment of Commerce, assisted small busi- ness in playing its significant role in the economy. The Reconstruction Finance Cor- poration has also been engaged in this effort. These services have now been adapted to the defense effort. In addition, the Department of Defense and the mobilization agencies have in a variety of ways promoted the place- ment of contracts wherever feasible with small businesses. This is important not only to obtain a faster build-up of defense output, but also to avoid unnecessary unemployment and distress, and to help preserve the com- petitive vigor of our economy. The Small Defense Plants Administration has recendy been established to coordinate Government policies and programs in behalf of small business, and to expand the role of small plants in defense and essential civilian pro- duction. This part of the Government's economic program is one of great urgency. It is most important that the Congress make available the necessary funds for the Small Defense Plants Administration. Aiding other free nations We must maintain a realistic attitude toward foreign aid. Mindful of the limita- tions of our own economy, we must also be mindful that some other countries are con- fronted by economic and political strains far more serious than ours. In the final analysis, the free world must be made more secure if we are to be secure. Our foreign policy objectives require con- tinued provision of both military and eco- nomic aid to free nations. Both types of aid are necessary. Our North Atlantic Treaty partners, in particular, are undertaking heavier burdens, whether they rebuild their defenses by buying military equipment from other countries, or by cutting civilian pro- duction to produce military goods them- selves. These countries are making great efforts to shoulder these burdens through their own productive efforts. This requires, among other things, that they have outlets for some of the goods which they can produce and want to exchange for other goods which they need to import. In this connection, I again recommend the repeal of Section 104 of the Defense Production Act, which restricts our imports of certain goods which the European and other countries have available for export to us on mutually advantageous terms. It is necessary to encourage the efforts which underdeveloped countries are making to further their own economic development, and to support these efforts by providing as much technical and economic assistance as we can afford and as they can effectively use for that purpose. We shall continue to share scarce capital goods by providing priority and other supply assistance for the export of such goods for essential purposes abroad. We shall also continue to participate actively in interna- tional arrangements to encourage production and equitable distribution of scarce raw ma- terials in the free world. Such measures help to expand the supply of goods and to restrain dangerous inflationary forces. Expanding our productive capacity Building up our productive capacity is a many-sided operation. The mainspring of this expansion is private initiative and in- vestment. But the Government has had to exercise important responsibilities. It has had to program and guide expansions in various key industries. This has been ef- fected by materials allocations, and by selec- 44 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 16 [15] tive aids and inducements such as tax amortization, loans, loan guarantees, and purchase agreements. The authority pro- vided by the Defense Production Act and related legislation to use these aids to ex- pand production has been very valuable, and will continue to be necessary. A number of public programs play an important role in expanding the total pro- ductive capacity of the economy. Roads, other transport facilities, public power de- velopments, and pilot plant research in metals and fuels, are illustrations. The Government is equipping and building cer- tain facilities for the production of war materiel, and is carrying out a large atomic energy program. To support needed expan- sion of production, certain urgently needed development projects, particularly the St. Lawrence seaway and power project, should be started now. The report of the Materials Policy Com- mission, which I appointed a year ago, will be finished shortly, and should provide long- range policy guides for increasing and im- proving supplies of raw materials. In general, the labor force thus far has proved adequate to meet the needs of in- creased production and a growing military establishment. But in certain categories of skill, and in certain industrial and farm areas, shortages exist. Appropriate measures are being taken to encourage training, re- cruitment, and the movement of workers when necessary, and to promote efficient use of the labor supply by employers. Man- power problems will probably grow more difficult, as defense production approaches its maximum level. A serious need has al- ready appeared for additional housing and community facilities and services in defense areas. While there are labor shortages in some areas, there are other areas where localized but serious unemployment exists, particu- larly in centers of automobile production. Strong efforts are being made to find ways of reducing this unemployment, including the placing of defense contracts in labor surplus areas. Experience has proved that our basic labor- management statute hampers the mainte- nance of the sound and healthy labor rela- tions and the uninterrupted production which are so essential to a sustained mobili- zation effort. The law should be promptly revised to accord the fair treatment to both labor and management which is vital to industrial harmony and steady production. Farmers are now being asked to produce more than ever before. The "sliding scale" in existing price support legislation has aroused concern in the minds of many farm- ers, who fear that their cooperation in ex- panding production to meet the present emergency might later result in serious losses to them. The Government's price support operations obviously should further attain- ment of production objectives, and they should not penalize producers for their full and patriotic cooperation with the agricul- tural program. I therefore recommend that the sliding scale provisions of the present agricultural legislation be repealed for this purpose. We need to strengthen the agricultural program by finding a more effective way of supporting the price of perishable farm com- modities. One method is by direct pay- ments to farmers. This and other methods are now being studied by the Congress. I hope that the Congress will provide legis- lation authorizing a sound and workable program for supporting prices of these perishables. Price supports in this emergency period must, of course, continue to be administered in a manner which achieves a proper balance between the goals of adequate production and of economic stabilization. The Secre- tary of Agriculture and the Director of Price Stabilization will continue to work together toward this end. In addition, I recommend that the Con- gress enact legislation to make clear the Government's policy of encouraging the or- ganization and sound growth of coopera- tives. The tax bill which was passed last 45 Lewfctnn Public Library ;_>n, Mr>ine [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents year included a tax on the unallocated re- serves of farmer cooperatives. This should be modified in such a way that newly-orga- nized cooperatives will not be subject to it, until they have had a limited period of years in which to establish themselves. Farmers are marketing their products and purchas- ing their supplies through more than 10,000 cooperatives, with an estimated membership of more than 6% million. Their organiza- tion in this form of business has had a healthy effect on the rural economy, and it is especially important to encourage this form of self-help when farmers are being asked to do a record job of production. Supporting civilian strength Faced with the necessity of maintaining a large national security program for an in- definitely long period, we should not lose sight of the importance of human produc- tiveness and morale. These depend upon adequate supplies of food, shelter, and cloth- ing, and adequate education, health services, and social security. However, for the next year or so, while the defense program is plac- ing such heavy demands upon materials and the labor force, we must recognize that only limited progress can be made in this direc- tion. Some increase in food and clothing can be achieved without adding to the de- mand for scarce materials. On the other hand, many types of civilian metal-using out- put will have to be curtailed further, because of competing higher priority uses for certain metals, notably copper and steel. While housing also must be curtailed, a sufficient quantity should be built this year to take care of the most essential needs. In education, health, and social security programs, we must continue to be highly selective, deferring improvements and exten- sions not clearly necessary now in support of the total defense effort. Education of children, however, cannot be postponed, nor should health standards be allowed to fall. I recommend a program of general Federal aid to help meet teaching and other school operating costs, and a more adequate pro- gram of Federal aid for school construction and operation in critical defense areas. To meet urgent needs in the health field, programs for Federal aid to medical educa- tion and the strengthening of local public health services should be enacted prompdy. I have recently appointed a Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, composed of professional and lay persons, which will make an objective study of vital health prob- lems, including the provision of adequate health care to all our people at prices they can afford to pay. Certain extensions and changes in the old- age and survivors insurance program, in line with longer-range objectives, would, if un- dertaken promptly, yield the additional ad- vantage of helping those groups who have been hit hardest by past inflation. Raising the level of benefit payments is especially desirable, and other improvements should include raising the taxable wage base, ex- tending the coverage to farmers and certain other groups, and providing for permanent and total disability. To provide more adequate protection against unemployment, I recommend the enactment of legislation to strengthen the present Federal-State unemployment insur- ance system, along the lines suggested in my message to the Congress on April 6, 1950. Legislation for this purpose is now pending before the Congress, providing specifically for extension of coverage to additional work- ers, establishment of nation-wide minimum levels for amounts and duration of unem- ployment benefits, establishment of adequate methods to assure payment of benefits to workers who move from one State to an- other, and improvements in administration of the system. Controlling inflation In determining the national economic poli- cies necessary to maintain stability in the economy in the coming year, the basic fact to take into consideration is that the progress of the security program will involve a steady increase in the requirements of the Govern- 46 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] ment for goods and services. The increase will bring Government demand at the end of the year to a level 20 billion dollars higher than the current annual rate of Gov- ernment purchases for this purpose, and will entail a corresponding increase in the amount of labor, materials, and other productive re- sources diverted from the civilian economy to the security program. At the same time, the security program will place a large ad- ditional buying power in the hands of businessmen and consumers. Consumer spending is the most uncertain factor determining the general inflationary outlook for 1952. While it is possible to make a reasonably satisfactory estimate of the volume of new business investment in plant and equipment this year, since it will be limited by the allocation of scarce ma- terials, there is no certainty at all in any esti- mate of consumer spending. For the last three quarters of 1951, consumers have vol- untarily elected to buy at a level no higher, in total physical units, than in the period before the initial attack in Korea. Instead, they have added to their personal saving much of the large increases which have taken place since that time in their income after taxes. The exceptionally high rate of personal saving has not been due to any general lack of goods available to consumers. Even in the case of durable goods which have been cut back in production by allocation orders, such as automobiles and major household appliances, no market pressure has been noticed since the first quarter of 1951. Tex- tiles and some other types of soft goods have been produced at a rate well below capacity, not on account of any shortage of labor or materials, but because consumer demand has fallen off in many lines. Manufacturers and retailers have been struggling with over- large inventories, which in many cases have not yet been brought down to the levels they desire. It is impossible to foresee how long this extraordinarily high level of personal saving will continue. It is not even certain that it may not be raised. But national economic policy may safely be based upon these as- sumptions: the progress of the security pro- gram will bring an increase in personal in- comes and enlarge the potential market demand of consumers; the longer consumers elect to save rather than to buy goods, the larger will become the accumulated fund of liquid assets; and the fund of liquid assets, when coupled with the higher current in- come of consumers, will add greatly to the potential consumer demand, and may in- creasingly tend to turn potential demand into abnormally active buying. This is a precarious situation, and any day some combination of events could cause con- sumers to reverse the prudent attitude of recent months. It is essential that we main- tain and perfect the policies which will effec- tively curb such an inflationary outburst. The effective policies open to us for use if private demand begins again to expand rapidly are those which enlarge output, those which limit the size of demand itself, and those which prevent surging demand from causing price increases. Since consumer out- put cannot be increased very much because labor and materials must be diverted to de- fense-related production, primary reliance must be upon those measures which limit demand or restrain its effect upon prices. Taxation, by a very direct process, reduces disposable income. An increase in voluntary saving reduces spending. Restrictive credit policy limits the expansion of business and consumer buying. Allocation and limitation orders prevent businessmen from piling up inventories again, and from stepping up their investment plans in an effort to exploit the larger markets they envisage when there is a great market boom. Price and wage controls are directed both to restraining in- come increases, and to holding the price line against unavoidable increases in demand. Requirements for additional taxation. Adequate taxation is essential, both to assure a sound fiscal position and to maintain eco- nomic stability. If the added Government spending for the defense program is not to 47 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents lead to price inflation, private spending by consumers and business must be held in check. Taxation pays for the Government spending, and at the same time reduces funds available for private spending. Three major tax laws have been enacted during the past 18 months. They have in- creased the annual yield of the Federal tax system by about 15 billion dollars, or ap- proximately by one-third. This is a good record. But it falls short of the amount of additional revenue needed. Early last year, I asked for a minimum tax program to yield 10 billion dollars or more. The bill enacted by the Congress came late in the calendar year, added only about one- half of this amount, and included a number of provisions which lost the Government revenue and reduced the equity of the tax system. A budget deficit of about 8 billion dollars is expected for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 1952. This is expected to be followed by a budget deficit approaching twice this size for the fiscal year 1953, unless further vigorous action to raise taxes is taken very soon. In view of this fiscal outlook, I urgently recommend that the Congress, as a mini- mum, provide additional revenues in the amount by which last year's legislation fell short of my recommendations. This can be achieved by eliminating loopholes and spe- cial privileges, and by some tax rate increases. While new tax legislation along these lines could scarcely affect the deficit for the cur- rent fiscal year, and would not restore a balanced budget in the fiscal year 1953, it would make a major contribution to the Government's budgetary position and to the stabilization program. The additional tax revenue will help to minimize borrowing by the Government from the banks. Borrow- ing from banks, more than borrowing from any other source, tends to enlarge the spend- ing stream and thus to increase inflationary pressures. With the tax system strengthened as I rec- ommend, there should be sufficient revenue, under the security program now planned, to cover fully the Government's expenditures after the peak of the defense build-up has been passed, and defense expenditures have been adjusted downward. It is important that we return, as quickly as possible during the period of defense mobilization, to a current pay-as-we-go basis for Government financing. Saving. If we are to hold down private spending to the level of available supply, while the national security programs are ex- panding, it is necessary also to promote a high level of saving. Dollars of income which are not spent by consumers or busi- nesses do not add to inflationary demand. During most of 195 1, personal saving was at an unusually high rate. Relatively stable prices encouraged increased saving, and in- creased saving helped to stabilize prices. We must continue to maintain conditions which will favor both saving and stable prices. Increasing the investment of private sav- ings in Government securities will reduce the need for the Government to borrow from banks for the purpose of refunding matur- ing security issues and financing deficits. Buying United States savings bonds and other Government securities is a good method of saving, and it is also a good method of supplying the Government's bor- rowing requirements in a noninflationary manner. Holders of maturing Series E sav- ings bonds now have the privilege of main- taining their investment in these bonds for another 10 years, during which the bonds will continue to earn interest at the same over-all rate. The efforts of the Treasury and other Government agencies will con- tinue to be directed toward encouraging individuals to buy and hold savings bonds and other Government securities. ^Credit control. Since private borrowing can augment the spending power of indi- viduals and businesses, and thus add funds to the aggregate spending stream, credit con- trol is also being used to help stabilize the economy. This type of control cannot be used indiscriminately, since credit plays a 48 Harry S. Truman, igp Jan. 16 [15] vital role in the functioning and growth of the economy, especially now when rapid expansion in certain vital sectors of the econ- omy is necessary. Periodic reviews are being made, at my request, of the policies of the Government lending agencies, to make certain that they promote the objectives of the defense effort by restraining less essential lending. The Voluntary Credit Restraint Program, which operates under the sponsorship of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, continues to be helpful in discouraging loans for less essential purposes, although con- tinuous care needs to be exercised not to discourage activities important for a strong defense economy. Selective credit controls are particularly useful under current conditions, because they reduce borrowing and spending for some of the less necessary kinds of goods, particularly those which compete for scarce materials. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is using its powers under the Defense Production Act to limit borrowing for the purchase of durable con- sumers' goods and new housing. The Con- gress last year reduced the authority to control these forms of credit. I recommend restoration of full administrative discretion in setting these credit terms. During the months ahead, we may face considerable pressure for excessive expansion of bank credit. I repeat my earlier recom- mendations that the powers of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to impose reserve requirements be enlarged. A related problem is control of margins for trading on commodity exchanges. The Congress has not acted upon the recommen- dation that the Secretary of Agriculture be authorized to regulate margins, in order to head off excessive speculative trading on the commodity exchanges. Fortunately, we have had no runaway commodity markets recently, but it is desirable to grant this authority in advance of any such situation. Price control. The relative stability of prices during most of 195 1 was encouraging. But this does not mean that we can now afford to relax price controls. In many im- portant areas, prices are straining at the ceilings. In others, softness exists which cannot be counted on to persist for long. Greater pressures loom ahead. At this stage of the mobilization program, it is more prudent to strengthen controls than to weaken them. We must continue the effort to hold the price line. Prices and profits are, in general, high enough to provide ample incentives to producers, and to permit considerable ab- sorption of cost increases. The Office of Price Stabilization has made great progress during the past year toward a balanced price structure which can be held firmly. It is developing simple, enforceable regulations to cover individual industries and commodi- ties. But if we are to hold the price line, ade- quate legislative authority must be granted. When the Defense Production Act was re- newed last summer, the power to control prices, instead of being strengthened, was seriously weakened. One weakening amendment permits any producer or seller of services, regardless of his need, to pass on all increases in all costs incurred from the first half of 1950 to July 26, 1951. Another weakening amendment requires the maintenance of customary percentage margins for distributors, thus virtually guar- anteeing that every dollar in cost increase will become much more than a dollar in the price paid by the consumer. Still another weakening amendment for- bids the establishment of slaughtering quotas. Slaughtering quotas were a strong bulwark of the beef ceilings by providing a fair distribution of the available supply of cattle among slaughterers and areas, thus helping to avoid black markets in meat. Last fall, this amendment upset the distribu- tion pattern, forced very high cattle prices, and endangered the continuance of the beef ceilings. Temporarily, the situation has im- proved, but we cannot afford to take another 49 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents chance. To achieve our stabilization objectives, these defects in price control legislation should be corrected and the law should be strengthened when it is extended. We can- not afford to gamble further with inflation. Rent control. Although rent controls cover only a part of the total rental housing in the country, they are of great importance in stabilizing rents in many major industrial areas, and should be continued. Vigorous use is being made of the authority provided last July by the Congress to reinstitute rent controls, where necessary, in critical defense housing areas, including areas around mili- tary posts. Thus far, full rent control has been, or is about to be, reimposed in 96 of these areas, and will be reimposed in other areas as needed. Wage stabilization. Wage stabilization, like price control, cuts the inflationary spiral and limits the rise of prices and costs, and should be continued. It also helps to prevent buying power from rising too far above the available supply of civilian goods. The poli- cies of the Wage Stabilization Board are designed to put a brake upon excessive wage adjustments, while at the same time recog- nizing that some adjustments in a free and dynamic economy are essential from the viewpoint both of equity and of incentives. Adjustments to take account of increases in the cost of living are a matter of simple equity, because price inflation is not a fair way to impose the burden of national de- fense. The fair way to impose the burden of national defense is by taxation and other restraints which can be equitably imposed. Wage adjustments to allow for increases in productivity, if carefully limited and firmly administered, can provide incentives which outweigh any possible inflationary effect. There are a few other specialized problems with which the Wage Stabilization Board must deal. To avoid inflation, we must maintain a firm price policy and a firm wage policy throughout the peak of the defense effort, and we must maintain a fair relationship between the two. Equality of sacrifice Where sacrifices are necessary — and many are — they must be equitably imposed, so as not to inflict public hardship in order to sup- port private gain. That is a main purpose of a strong anti-inflation program. Special attention is also being directed toward the problems of small business and those who are unemployed in local areas, so that a lim- ited segment of the population shall not be made to bear an excessive part of the burden of national defense. The year 1952 is not going to be an easy year for the economy. It is going to be a year of strain. We must expect this, and prepare to bear some inconveniences and hardships. For most of us, the hardships will be minor. There will be plenty of food and other essential commodities, and the highest civilian employment in our history. As the economy becomes adjusted to the new conditions and grows in size, and especially when defense expenditures decline, we may confidently look forward to the relaxation and removal of many kinds of controls and restrictions. In the meantime, all of us must join in the vast effort to safeguard our na- tional security. SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS I summarize below the legislative recom- mendations contained in this Economic Re- port, to promote the defense effort, strength- en the economy, and maintain economic stability. 1. Renew the Defense Production Act for two more years, and strengthen its provi- sions, particularly those relating to produc- tion expansion and to the control of prices and credit. 2. Provide continued military and eco- nomic aid to free nations; and, as a step toward removing trade barriers, repeal Sec- tion 104 of the Defense Production Act, which restricts our imports of certain goods which European and other countries could 50 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] export to us on mutually advantageous terms. 3. Aid small business by providing the necessary funds for the Small Defense Plants Administration. 4. Provide for certain urgently needed development projects, particularly the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. 5. Provide for the construction of needed housing and community facilities in defense areas. 6. Revise the basic legislation concerning labor-management relations, so that it will not hamper sound and healthy labor rela- tions and uninterrupted production. 7. Repeal the sliding scale provisions in existing agricultural price support legisla- tion; provide a workable support program for perishable commodities; and modify the tax on unallocated reserves of farmer cooperatives. 8. Provide at least enough additional reve- nues to reach the revenue goal proposed last year, by eliminating loopholes and special privileges, and by tax rate increases. 9. Provide powers to the Board of Gover- nors of the Federal Reserve System to impose additional bank reserve requirements; and provide authority to control margins for trading on commodity exchanges. 10. Raise the level of benefit payments, and make other improvements, in our sys- tem of old-age and survivors insurance; and strengthen the Federal-State unemployment insurance system. 11. Authorize Federal aid to help meet school operating costs, and increase aid for school construction and operation in critical defense areas. 12. Authorize Federal aid to assist medi- cal education, and provide for strengthening local public health services. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN 195 1 Government outlays for national security programs almost doubled during 195 1. In the fourth quarter, these outlays were run- ning at an annual rate of 45 billion dollars, compared with 24 billion a year earlier. They represented 14 percent of the total out- put of goods and services, compared with 8 percent at the end of 1950. The impact was much greater in some industries. Currendy, more than a quarter of the output of the metalworking and construction industries is being taken for defense. Production of goods and services (gross national product in 1951 prices) was about 327 billion dollars in 195 1, or 8 percent higher than the 1950 output of about 300 billion dollars. In the fourth quarter of 1 95 1, total production reached an annual rate of about 330 billion dollars, a gain of 5 per- cent over total output in the fourth quarter of 1950. The bulk of the increase took place during the first half of 1951; in the second half, total output was practically stable. Industrial production fluctuated within a narrow range through most of 195 1. In December, it was at the same level as a year earlier, and 22 percent higher than in De- cember 1949. Defense and defense-support- ing activities continued to increase. The output of consumer goods declined, because of materials cutbacks and sagging demand. Agricultural production, despite adverse weather developments in the fall, was near the previous record year. Average civilian food consumption was slightly above the pre-Korean level, while we met the food requirements of an expanded military force. Employment of civilians at the end of 195 1 was 61 million, the same as the average level for the year. This was about 1 million higher than in 1950, although the civilian labor force was 200,000 less because of the rapid increase in the armed forces. Nonagricultural employment averaged 54 million, and was 1 1/2 million higher than in 1950. The largest increases were in the in- dustries associated directly or indirecdy with defense production, which now engage 5^ million persons, compared with 2 million at the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Agricultural employment continued its long-run decline, amounting in 195 1 to about 7 million, or 450,000 less than in 1950. 51 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents The workweek, which had averaged more than 41 hours in manufacturing industries in the last half of 1950, dropped slightly during the first half of 1951, and averaged almost 40 J/2 hours during the second half. The workweek expanded in defense indus- tries, while it declined somewhat in the consumer goods industries. Unemployment decreased from 2.2 million persons, or 3.6 percent of the civilian labor force, at the end of 1950, to 1.7 million, or about 2.7 percent, at the close of 1 95 1 . How- ever, the impact of materials shortages and sagging demand for textiles and other con- sumer goods has increased unemployment in a number of areas. Wor\ stoppages resulted in less loss of man-days of labor than in any comparable postwar period. Less than one-fourth of 1 percent of total working time was lost by strikes. Prices were relatively stable during most of 195 1, in sharp contrast to the violent waves of general price increases which marked the second half of 1950, and which were quieted after the imposition of the gen- eral price and wage freeze late in January. Wholesale prices, which had advanced almost 17 percent between the outbreak of the Korean aggression and the general freeze, then declined 3 percent by the end of the year. The drops took place mainly in some farm commodities, textiles, hides and leather, and fats and oils. Consumers' prices, which had risen 8 per- cent from the Korean aggression to the im- position of general price controls, continued to creep upward, advancing another 2.6 per- cent between February and November 195 1. The largest increases have occurred where controls, under the law, could be imposed only partially or not at all. Wages rose during 1951, although at a much lower rate than in the second half of 1950. Wages and salaries were at an an- nual rate of 174.6 billion dollars in the fourth quarter of 1951, contrasted with 157.9 billion a year earlier. The rise was greater in the durable goods industries than in nondura- bles. Average weekly earnings advanced proportionately less than the increase in hourly earnings, because of the decline in working hours. In manufacturing, average weekly earnings rose from $62.23 in Novem- ber 1950 to $65.25 in November 195 1, a rise of 5 percent. Corporate profits before taxes in 195 1 were the highest on record, reaching an estimated 44.8 billion dollars. The previous peak was 41.4 billion reached in 1950. However, be- cause of lower sales and prices in many in- dustries, profits declined substantially after the first quarter. Corporate profits after taxes were much lower in 1951 than in 1950, because of the higher tax rates. In 1951, they were an esti- mated 1 8. 1 billion dollars, compared with 22.8 billion in the peak year 1950. Unincorporated business and professional incomes for the year were 23.6 billion dollars, compared with 22.3 billion in 1950. After rising sharply in the first quarter of the year, they declined substantially until the fourth quarter, when it is estimated that they again rose. Farm income in 195 1 was 17.0 billion dol- lars, compared with 13.7 billion in 1950. It rose slowly throughout the year, reaching a level of 18.0 billion in the final quarter — 2.2 billion higher than the fourth quarter of 1950. Personal income in the aggregate kept growing in 195 1, although at a slower rate than in 1950. For the year as a whole, it was 251.3 billion dollars, compared with 224.7 billion in 1950. In the fourth quarter, personal income was at an annual rate of 258 billion dollars, compared with 238 bil- lion a year earlier. Despite increased per- sonal tax liabilities, spendable personal in- come was 15 percent above its pre-Korea level in the fourth quarter of 1951. When the figures are adjusted for price changes, however, total spendable income in 1951 did not regain late 1950 levels until after mid- year. Personal consumption expenditures were 204.4 billion dollars in 1951, compared with 52 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 16 [15] 193.6 billion in 1950. They dropped sharply after the first quarter peak, and then rose gradually to an annual rate of 205.0 billion in the fourth quarter, or 6.6 billion higher than a year earlier. Adjusted for price changes, however, the volume of consumer purchases in the second half of 1951 was about 3.5 percent lower than in the second half of 1950. Consumer supplies, in the main, were extraordinarily abundant. About 1.1 mil- lion new houses were built. About 5.3 mil- lion automobiles were assembled, and about i2!/2 million radios and more than 5 million television sets were produced. Food con- sumption was above the 1947-50 average. Clothing supplies exceeded the demand. Personal saving, the difference between disposable income and expenditures, bounded upward from 4 percent of income in the first quarter of 195 1 to a rate above 9 percent for the rest of the year. This high rate of saving was almost twice the pre- Korean postwar average. In 195 1, personal net saving was 18.5 billion dollars, con- trasted with 10.7 billion in 1950. In the fourth quarter of 1951, the annual rate was 23.0 billion dollars. Domestic investment was higher in 1951 than in any previous year, the total being 58.8 billion dollars contrasted with 48.9 bil- lion in 1950. Mainly because of the bulging of new inventories in the first half of the year, the rate of growth was uneven. Gross private domestic investment accounted for 18 percent of total national output, or slightly more than in 1950. Expenditures on non- farm plant and equipment grew throughout 195 1, with increasing emphasis on programs for urgently needed expansion in key indus- tries . These expenditures totaled 31.6 billion dollars in 1951, compared with 25.6 billion in 1950. More new construction was put in place in 195 1 than in any previous year. The total for 1 95 1 was 30 billion dollars, compared with 28 billion for 1950. But starting in September, the total rate dropped below that of the comparable month in 1950, with the principal reductions occurring in commercial and recreational construction. The volume of public construction exceeded 1950 by nearly 2 billion dollars, as new defense and defense-related projects more than offset reductions principally in highways and conservation and development projects. Inventories were accumulated by manufac- turers and distributors in 1951 at the highest rate on record — 8 billion dollars. The an- nual rate reached a peak of 14.8 billion in the second quarter, as consumer buying dropped sharply; it dropped to 3 billion in the fourth quarter, with retailers once again achieving a more comfortable inventories- sales position. Corporations financed expansion programs during 195 1 without great difficulty. A smaller proportion — about 40 percent — of total funds used came from internal sources than in recent years, and a larger proportion came from outside sources. New stock and bond issues totaled almost 60 percent higher than in 1950, with the proportion of bonds relatively high. Government financial aids stimulated expansion in selected areas, but contributed only a small fraction of total funds used. Private credit expanded at a much slower rate in 195 1 than in 1950. Nonbusiness loans of commercial banks — including their consumer and mortgage loans — increased by about 1.5 billion dollars in 1951, compared with 4.4 billion the year before. Such loans totaled 31.8 billion dollars at the end of 1951. As a result of the financial needs of defense- supporting activities, commercial and indus- trial loans by banks grew almost as rapidly as in 1950. The privately-held money supply ex- panded nearly 9 billion dollars in 195 1 as a whole. It declined sharply in the first quar- ter as heavy tax payments were made, and then grew steadily in the last three quarters of the year. International transactions of the United States during 1951 saw the expansion in ex- ports of goods and services, which reached a peacetime record of more than 20 billion 53 55-672 — 66 [15] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents dollars, exceed the expansion in imports. Imports also reached a new high, despite a slump in commodity imports in the second and third quarters. Exports of semi-fin- ished and finished products increased in quantity as well as price. The export sur- plus, which had fallen to an annual rate of 1.5 billion dollars in the second half of 1950, increased to a rate of about 6.5 billion in the second half of 1951. Foreign aid extended during 1951 in- creased by much less than the export surplus, and the gold and dollar outflow was reversed. Exports of private capital dropped below their 1950 level. United States private in- vestors continued to encounter obstacles to investment abroad. In other free nations, total industrial pro- duction, money incomes, and prices rose in 1 95 1 compared with 1950, but agricultural production showed little change from the preceding crop year. The balance of pay- ments positions of some countries, notably the United Kingdom and France, became worse during the year, and the general eco- nomic situation deteriorated in a number of countries. The worldwide rise in prices, set off by the Korean hostilities, slowed up or was pardy reversed in most countries during the first half of 1951, although in many it was resumed during the second half of the year. Government finances involved, for the Federal Government, a shift from a sizable surplus to a substantial deficit during the course of calendar year 1951. For the year as a whole, Federal expenditures were 56.8 billion dollars, and net budget receipts were 53.5 billion. This left a calendar year budget deficit of about 3!/3 billion dollars — 3 billion more than in 1950. Expenditures for the major national security programs totaled 37.3 billion dollars. On a "cash" basis, which includes the cash receipts of the social security and other trust funds, a sur- plus in the first half of 195 1 and a deficit in the second half added up to a cash surplus of 1.2 billion for the year as a whole. In its management of the public debt, the Treasury not only did some new borrowing, but also refinanced a substantial portion of the outstanding debt during the year. Of importance in keeping the debt outside the banking system, and hence minimizing its inflationary potential, was the exchange of 13.6 billion dollars worth of marketable long- term bonds for nonmarketables and the legis- lative extension of the interest-bearing period for Series E bonds. State and local governments, with revenues increasing slightly more than expenditures since 1950, showed a deficit of 400 million dollars in 195 1, a reduction of 500 million from 1950. Harry S. Truman note: The message and the complete report (220 pp.) are published in "The Economic Report of the President, Transmitted to the Congress January 16, 1952" (Government Printing Office, 1952). As printed above the charts and references thereto have been deleted. 16 Joint Statement Following Discussions With Prime Minister Churchill Concerning the Atlantic Command. January 18, 1952 THE PRESIDENT and the Prime Minister with their advisors have had several discus- sions relating to the arrangements about the Atlantic Command recommended by NATO and accepted by the late Government of the United Kingdom. As a result of their dis- cussions they agreed that His Majesty's Government and the United States Govern- ment would recommend to NATO certain alterations in the arrangements designed to extend the United Kingdom home com- mand to the 100 fathom line. They also agreed on the desirability of certain changes which would provide greater flexibility for 54 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 19 [17] the control of operations in the Eastern Atlantic. These changes however do not go the full way to meet the Prime Minister's objections to the original arrangements. Nevertheless the Prime Minister, while not withdrawing his objections, expressed his readiness to allow the appointment of a Supreme Commander to go forward in order that a command structure may be created and enabled to proceed with the necessary planning in the Atlantic area. He reserved the right to bring forward modifications for the consideration of NATO, if he so desired, at a later stage. note: See also Items 4, 6. 17 The President's News Conference on the Budget. January 19, 1952 the president, [i.] I want to start this thing off with a couple of readings here which will clear up a lot of things for you if you haven't read the Budget Message. This is in addition to the message. [Reading] "Since drafting the Budget Message, we have completed our studies of the need for an appreciable increase in the production of fissionable material. Ac- cordingly, I have directed the Atomic Energy Commission, in cooperation with the De- partment of Defense and the Office of De- fense Mobilization, to prepare a program for submission to the Congress at its current session. "While these plans will require immediate authority to begin letting between 5 and 6 billion dollars of contracts, the major cash expenditures for this purpose will not occur until after the fiscal year 1953. Therefore, the expenditures for the fiscal years 1952 and 1953 will not be materially affected by this increase in the atomic energy program." [2.] Now, I am going to do something I seldom ever do. I am going to read you a couple of pages out of the Budget Message, which will explain a lot of things that you will be asking me. And it is most important. [Reading] "The expenditures are esti- mated at $85.4 billion, an increase of $14.5 billion over the current fiscal year, and $45.3 billion over 1950, the last full fiscal year before the attack on Korea. "Receipts under our present tax laws are estimated at $71 billion, an increase of $8.3 billion over the current fiscal year, and $34 billion over 1950. "The increase in receipts will fall short of meeting the increase in expenditures. In the absence of new revenue legislation, a deficit of 14.4 billion is in prospect for the fiscal year 1953, 6.2 billion greater than the estimated deficit for the current fiscal year. "Eighteen months ago the unprovoked attack upon the Republic of Korea made it clear that the Kremlin would not hesitate to resort to war in order to gain its ends. In the face of this grim evidence, this Nation and the other nations of the free world realized that they must rearm in order to survive. "Since then we have made significant progress in rebuilding our defenses. We have more than doubled the strength of our Armed Forces. We have increased the number of our Army divisions from 10 to 18. We have returned to duty more than 160 combatant vessels from our 'mothball' fleet. We have added more than 40 wings to our Air Force. We have greatly expanded our production of military equipment and our ability to mobilize for any emergency. We have provided our allies overseas with the critical margin of aid necessary to help them grow stronger. "This Budget reflects the progress we have made thus far, and it lays the groundwork for further progress." Now, this is the important page I want you to pay particular attention to. 55 [xy] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents [Continuing reading] "It reflects our prog- ress to date in two ways. First, the high rate of expenditures for military equipment estimated for 1953 reflects the results of the tremendous effort that has been made during the past 18 months in getting the flow of production started. Second, the smaller amount of new obligational authority which I am recommending indicates the substantial portion of the financial requirements for our military buildup that has been met in the appropriations already made by the Congress. "This Budget lays the groundwork for further progress by providing for additional increases in the strength of our Armed Forces, additional deliveries of arms to our allies overseas, continued requirements of our atomic energy program, and further de- velopment of our economic strength. By the end of the fiscal year 1953, we will have reached or passed the peak production rates for all of our major military items except some of the newer model aircraft and some weapons not yet in production. "This Budget calls for the largest expend- itures in any year since World War II. It will involve a heavy burden for our tax- payers, because the job of building the strength we need to safeguard the security of this Nation is enormously expensive." And that means the security of the world as a whole from communism. [Continuing reading] "Despite its size, this is not a Budget for all-out mobilization. It is a Budget carefully planned to carry us a long way forward on the road to security — at a pace which is not only within our present economic capacity but which will enable us to grow stronger in the years to come. "If new international tensions do not de- velop, and if no further aggression is at- tempted, I hope we will be able to reduce the Budget expenditures after fiscal year 1954. By then we should have completed most of our currently planned military expansion. "More than three-fourths of the total expenditures" — and this is important — "in- cluded in this Budget are for major national security programs — military services, inter- national security and foreign relations, the development of atomic energy, the promo- tion of defense production and the economic stabilization, civil defense, and merchant marine activities." [3.] Now then, I want to turn over to Page Mn, (p. 6S)1 and in the middle of the page you will find Borrowing and the Public Debt. [Reading] "On the basis of present tax rates, it is estimated that the public debt will increase from 255 billion at the beginning of the current fiscal year to 260 billion by June 30, 1952, and to $275 billion by June 30, 1953 — the present statutory limit. "The prospective debt increase makes it essential that the Government continue to follow policies in the new financing and re- funding of maturing issues which reinforce the economic stabilization program. The American people can help the stabilization program by continuing to purchase savings bonds and by taking other steps to increase new savings. The millions of people who own savings bonds maturing in the near future can also help to combat inflation by keeping their bonds and allowing them to continue accumulating interest, rather than cashing them at this time. Legislation en- acted last year permits the holders of these bonds to earn interest on them for another 10 years without the necessity of exchanging them for new bonds." And that is most important. Now, when I came in here, the national debt was $280 billion. We succeeded in re- ducing it to 251 billion. But that reduction was greater than the national debt when we got into World War II. Due to the fact that we haven't been able to get the pay-as-you-go policy implemented as it should have been, we are climbing back on the national debt; but that is not an alarming situation because 1 Page references in parentheses, throughout this news conference, indicate where the subjects referred to may be found in the Budget Message as printed herein (Item 18); all other references correspond to the page numbers in the Budget as published in House Document 285 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). 56 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 19 [17] the national income is — well, it's the differ- ence between 40 or 50 billions in 1934 and 284 billions, I believe it was estimated this year. National production is about 330 billions. And the relationship between the national obligations and the national ex- penditures is well below what it was in the years when we had to spend so much money for an actual all-out war. I wanted to get that perfectly plain in your minds, because the country is in good shape, financially and physically; and we have been able to impose the defense program on the national economy without very much letup in the things and services that people think they ought to have. Now I will try to answer questions. [4.] Q. Mr. President, would you repeat again the figure for the atomic energy in- crease ? the president. Between 5 and 6 billions. Q. Billions? the president. Between 5 and 6 billions. But that will not come — be a burden on the economy for a year or two yet. Q. Mr. President, within the range of se- curity, can you tell us what happened that necessitated that, after this budget was completed ? the president. Well, the reason for the increase is due to the fact that we have — as I said in San Francisco — some fantastic weapons for which we have to prepare, which in the long run will save us money. [5.] Q. Mr. President, will you ask for an increase in the public debt limit, if Congress the president. Not this time, no. It isn't necessary yet. Q. It says here you will reach it, sir — in that year 1953-54. the president, i 954. Principal expendi- tures on this increase will be in 1954 and 1955- Q. Well, that brings it right up to the statutory limit then ? the president. Well, let's wait and see, let's wait and see. [6.] Q. Mr. President, you said this atomic energy expenditure would eventually save us money. Does that mean that the increase in atomic preparedness will bring about a decrease in conventional armaments eventually? the president. That is the hope. I can't say that categorically, but that is the hope. [7.] Q. Mr. President, will you send a special message to Congress on taxes, or in any way supplement the statements on taxes in the Economic and Budget Messages? the president. The statement on the — taxes in the Economic and Budget Messages are all the statements that I intend to make. They state the facts, and it is up to the Congress after that. Q. There will be no special message, then, indicating the nature of the great increases you desire? You do not plan to send a spe- cial tax message? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Mr. President, I believe you scheduled a program last year breaking down those rates when you submitted the $10 billion program the president. That program of last year is the one I want. We did not get it fin- ished, and that is what I said in both these messages, and it is very carefully set out in last year's special tax message. Joseph Short (Secretary to the President): In the interest of everyone here, will the questioner please stand and speak clearly ? the president. This room has acoustic properties like my oval room in the office in the White House. It isn't nearly so good as the one we use for press conferences, but it has more room and more seats. And that is the reason we come over here. [8.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us over what period of time that 5 or 6 billion dollars for atomic energy will be spent? the president. In about 5 years. Q. About 5 years ? the president. Yes. That is a statement that has to be taken with a grain of salt. We don't know exactly how long it will take. Q. Aside from saving us money which you said it would — you hoped it would — 57 [17] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents will it also bring closer your aim of peace, do you think? the president. I do. I wouldn't agree to it if I didn't think so. Q. I know that. the president. That's a fact. Q. That is in the interest the president. The whole thing of — this thing is done in the interest of peace in the world. Q. Does it bring it, do you think, more imminent — closer the president. I hope so. I can only hope. That is what I am hoping for all the time. [9]. Q. Mr. President, could you spell out a little more for us the meaning of financing — of maturing issues to reinforce the economic stabilization program? What sort of financing do you mean that would enter into that picture? the president. That is the financing that goes on all the time. We hope that there will be more savings bonds bought which will be of great help in preventing inflation, and also it will help in the refinancing of the program. Q. Continue the present financing pro- gram ? the president. That's right. [10.] Q. Mr. President, on M-12 (p. 69) you speak of 143 air wings. When is the target date for these 143 wings? the president. As quickly as it can be done. That is a matter that the Air Force and the Defense Department are working on, and I can't give you an exact date. Q. Not 1954 or 1955? the president. I can't give you an exact date. [11.] Q. Mr. President, is there any figure we can have as to how much will be unexpended at the end of this coming fiscal year June 30, 1952, from earlier appropria- tions? the president. I will let the Budget Di- rector answer that. Director Lawton: 72 billion. 72.8. the president. I was going to say 71. Director Lawton: 72.8. [12.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify this atomic thing, if you don't mind, sir. As I understand it, you don't need any more money this year than you have asked for in this budget, but what you want is authoriza- tion for the 5 or 6 billion to be expended over a 5-year period? the president. Contract authorization, that is correct. Contract authorization, that's right. Q. Another question on that subject. Will that be — can you say whether that will be for facilities largely, or will it go largely for end products? the president. Facilities. Q. Mr. President, is the decrease in the obligational authority for the Defense De- partment a reflection of that 5 or 6 billion for atomic energy? the president. No. They go together, though. They should go together. The decrease in the obligational authority for the Defense Department was because it is not physically possible for them to spend the money, and there is no use making an obli- gation when they can't get the material that they are asking for, and you can't spend the money, so when they cut the obligational authority down for this year, it doesn't in any way hamper the defense program. [13.] Q. Mr. President, would we be justified in assuming that from this state- ment that you make — you want to continue policies for the financing and refunding of programs which reinforce the economic sta- bilization program — would we be justified in assuming that you have accepted and given approval to the dropping of the peg under Government bonds by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury? the president. You cannot. I never was in favor of it, and I am not yet. I had some experience after the First World War in that line. You remember we had a lot of 4% percent bonds at that time, and the people who were working on the very situation you talk about ran those bonds down to 80 or 82 — I forget which it was — and we bought them all up, and after that they sold for 125, 58 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 19 [17] until they expired. The people who put their savings into these bonds ought to be protected, just the same as the bankers ought to be protected. That is my theory. That has always been my theory. That is the theory of the Secretary of the Treasury. Q. Hasn't there been a change, though, Mr. President, in it, insofar as each individual now purchasing E bonds is protected as to the redemption value, as against the open market bonds? the president. You answer it, John. Secretary Snyder: On the savings bonds program, the E's, Fs, and G's — what you have stated is true. There is a new arrange- ment there for protecting the face value of the bonds. However, what the President was saying was that there was a lot of sav- ings that went into the regular issues also, and they are the ones that he had in mind. the president. That's right — the long- term bonds. [ 14.] Q. Mr. President — M57 (p. 100) — in relation to your discussion of this flood and war disaster program, first, do you plan to send a special message of any sort out- lining the proposed form the flood insurance program will take? the president. Eventually, yes. As soon as I have all the information at hand I hope to do that. The only flood control program included in this budget — the Missouri Val- ley, which was almost ruined this last spring, and the dam at Keokuk. That dam is dis- integrating. When it was built they didn't know how to use concrete very well, and it is about to go down the river, and we have got to save it if we can. Q. In relation to the second paragraph on that page, discussing the Budget Bureau's proposal last year on the war disaster in- demnity program, your last sentence says, "The appropriate agencies of the Govern- ment are continuing to review and improve these proposals." Does that mean that some sort of refinement will be sent up to Congress ? the president. We are trying to find the answer. Nobody knows the answer. For instance, if disaster should befall us so that New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago should be wiped out, the figures in regard to that situation are fantastic. And we haven't yet found a way to meet a disaster insurance situation. And we are working on it. We have all the great insurance companies and everybody else advising us on the subject. [15.] Q. Mr. President, on that same page — aid to education — that seems to be one of your principal recommendations in this budget. Are you going to send another message on that point? You seem to feel very strongly the president. I may, if it becomes nec- essary. I am going to talk to those people and see if we can't get some action. If we can't, why I'll make a speech on it. [16.] Q. Going back to atomic energy, I gathered from what you said that 1 billion, 255 is the first installment on the 5- or 6- billion dollar program? the president. Well, no, it isn't. It's the first installment on the present program. That 5 or 6 billion will come later. Q. I see. That is in addition to this? the president. That's right, that is in addition. [17.] Q. Mr. President, could you dis- cuss how your military budget might affect future aircraft production? Manufacturers seem to expect severe cutbacks in their sched- ules due to this budget. the president. It depends altogether on our ability to obtain scarce materials. It may and it may not. If we can get the material, it will not. That's the difficulty — strategic metals and things that are hard to get, and if we can't get the metals we have got to meet the program. We have made some cutbacks on automobiles and refrigerators, and things of that kind. I hope we won't have to go much further with it. Q. Mr. President, you don't anticipate that the reduction in new obligational authority for the Defense Department will delay the achievement of a 143 group air force? the president. No, I do not. The lag between the order and the plane is so great 59 [17] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents that that will have no effect on it at all. You see, I have had plenty of experience on that. I used to go around and "punch" the com- panies, and try to get things off the line in 1943 and 1944. And usually when they came off the line they were obsolete, and we had to build them over. That is what we want to avoid if we can, in this instance. [18.] Q. Mr. President, could you give us a carryover figure for fiscal year 1953, comparable to the one you gave for fiscal year 1952? the president. That was 1953 Director La wton: 71.7. the president. That figure went into 1953- Director La wton: 71.7. Q. I meant at the end. Director La wton: That is into 1954 — out of 1953 into 1954. the president. About the same. [19.] Q. Mr. President, you call atten- tion on page M6 (p. 65) to a decline of 9 percent in the other expenditures of Govern- ment apart from the military. I wonder if you or Mr. Lawton could give us some of the largest individual items in that list? the president. Principally in new starts on reclamation and flood control, and things of that sort. This budget has been the biggest head- ache I have ever had. This is my seventh or eighth budget — I think the seventh one I have made since I have been President. I had a hand in implementing 15 more be- fore that, as a Member of the Appropria- tions Committee of the Senate. And I have never had as much difficulty getting the budget in shape, so I could send it to the Congress, as I have with this one. We have been working on it since the first day of September. I think you can tell that, be- cause I can answer your questions. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, on page M6 (p. 64), the paragraph above Budget Expenditures, I am intrigued by the "1954" and the use of the word "we." "I hope we will be able to reduce budget expenditures after the fis- cal year 1954." Would you mind explain- ing what kind of a "we" that is ? the president. You don't need any ex- planation for that. You know, there are 531 fellows down the street here that have to work on the budget, and they have to work in cooperation with me if they are going to get anything done. Q. I thought you were referring to your- self? the president. No. I am referring to Congress and the executive branch of the Government. I never call myself "we." I say "I" when it is necessary. I don't wear a crown yet. [Laughter] [20.] Q. In connection with that, Mr. President, I wonder if you wouldn't tell us if you would take some pleasure from being able to submit the 1955 budget? the president. I will answer that ques- tion at a later date. [21.] Q. Mr. President, in your Navy budget you have got a billion and a quarter for ships and facilities. Does that include any more flush-deck carriers? the president. I am not sure whether it does or not, because I haven't got the de- tails on it yet. I think probably it does. It includes one, the Budget Director says. Q. One. One more? the president. One more. [22.] Q. Mr. President, I have a ques- tion I think is fiscal — [laughter] the president. Good. Go ahead, May.2 Q. We asked Mr. Churchill 3 yesterday at his off the record press conference whether he had won off you at poker. His answer was off the record, but since this is off the record, I wonder if — on the record — I won- der if you would answer? the president. I support Mr. Churchill's answer. [Laughter] [23.] Q. Mr. President, as I recall, when you sent your last budget up, you said that it would be very, very difficult, you thought, 2 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. 3 Winston S. Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. 60 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 19 [17] for Congress to cut it, in fact you practically dared them to cut it. Would you say the same thing about this budget? the president. I have never made a budget yet that I didn't think was correct. The figures in this budget can be supported by evidence that I think is incontrovertible. The Congress did not try to cut the budget in detail, they made an across the board per- centage proposition, which is entirely con- trary to the Constitution. When I send the budget to the Congress, they are supposed to take it item by item, and decide whether that is right or wrong. When they work that out on a percentage cut, why it's all wrong. [24.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us, please, what level of national income was assumed in arriving at the figure of $71 billion in receipts in fiscal 1953? THE PRESIDENT. 274? Secretary Snyder: 256. THE PRESIDENT. 256? Secretary Snyder: 265 — I beg your pardon, 265. the president. John, I thought it was 274? Secretary Snyder: Personal income, 265. the president. 265, that's right. Secretary Snyder: This year's was on 251. Q. Would that be the national income figure that would relate to that? Director Lawton: About 220 billion — higher — around 285. the president. 280 — 285. But the na- tional product is a thing you have to con- sider. Secretary Snyder: That is still higher. the president. 330 billion, if I remember correctly. Q. You are assuming 330 in fiscal '53 ? Secretary Snyder: We bottom our reve- nue estimate on the average income paid to individuals and on corporate earnings; that is, 265 is the estimated average income to individuals, and 46 on income to corpora- tions. Those were the figures that we used as the base. Now, for this present year 1952, we use 250 and 45. 55-672—66- the president. That's right. [25.] Q. Mr. President, going back to that atomic energy obligational authority, does that mean that instead of 84.2 billion of new obligational authority, it will be something like 90 billion? the president. No. We won't go into that in detail. This atomic business is a very touchy subject. I wish you would get off it as much as you can. I have given you all the facts possible in this little state- ment I have made here, and details you can't go into at this time. When it comes time so I can put out the details, you will have them all. Q. I wasn't thinking of details, Mr. Pres- ident. I was just wondering where it fits into it — in other words, a request for obliga- tional authority that will add on to the total the president. No, it will not be. Not this year. [26.] Q. On M64 (p. 105), in the social security economic report, and again here, you suggest an increase in the taxable wage base of $3,600. What figure do you have in mind the president. I don't understand the question ? Q. On M64 (p. 105) — social security — what taxable wage base would you propose above $3,600 — how high do you want to go above that? the president. I haven't given it much thought. I think it ought to go up to 6,000, probably. [27.] Q. Mr. President, you have always been an advocate of the St. Lawrence Sea- way. the president. That's right. Q. You indicate in here now that Canada is seriously considering building that on her own. the president. Canada is going to build it on her own, if we don't go into partner- ship with her — they have assured me of that — and then we are going to have to pay taxes to Canada. Q. I just wonder how that would penalize 61 [17] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents the United States if we do not build the president. Canada then will get all the fees that go with the operation of the Canadian — of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and we will pay toll on it because we have got to use it. Otherwise we would be in part- nership and split the thing 50-50. [28.] Q. Mr. President, I don't find any — there may be an item in here on na- tional health insurance. Are you waiting for your commission to report, before you the president. I think I have covered that in the Message on the State of the Union, and as soon as the health commission re- ports I will have Q. Your previous budget did contain an item the president. My mind hasn't changed on it. Q. There is no item in here. I am asking is there any item? the president. No, there isn't any item, because we are waiting to get more infor- mation on the subject. [29.] Q. Mr. President, I want — I don't want to keep harping on this atomic energy thing, either, but I wonder if you would clarify — would the 5 or 6 billion be a request for contract authorization, not new obliga- tional authority ? the president. When the time comes to ask for it, why of course it will be contract authority. Q. But no request for funds ? THE PRESIDENT. It will be Director Lawton: It will be obligational authority. Whether it is in that full amount immediately, or whether it will be neces- sary between now and the next 2 fiscal years will be the question. As to whether it goes up to this first amount, it may be some- thing less than the first request, but some more to come in a subsequent request — but that is the total. It will be at this session of Congress. the president. The request will be made at this session, won't it? I wasn't sure whether we had to make this request this session, or wait; because we can't do any- thing about it for some time to come. The Budget Director tells me there is a lot of machinery that has to be ordered far in advance — takes 2 or 3 years to get. [30.] Q. Mr. President, there is nothing in the budget on the Brannan farm plan. Have you changed your mind on that? the president. No, I have not. I think I covered that in the Message on the State of the Union — also the Economic Message. [31.] Q. Mr. President, the aircraft fig- ure of 18 billion, 9 — the Air Force boys are always talking of 20 — did they holler on this one ? the president. Oh, yes. They always holler. What's the use of giving something they can't use? When it comes time, we always meet the necessities. Q. It's on the strategic materials that is holding that back ? the president. That's correct. [32.] Q. Mr. President, on page 581 of the big book — [laughter] the president. Go ahead, it's all right. Q. Relating to war risk insurance revolv- ing fund under Marine Activity, it refers to tide 12 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 as amended. Does that mean the bill was enacted by Congress last year which au- thorized the standby program on marine war risk insurance ? the president. I am not sure about that. Is that a fact? Director Lawton: It includes all amend- ments to that effect — the act as it stands today — the authorities as it stands today. Q. I was wondering whether that act last year was the amendment to the 1936 act or whether that was a separate act? the president. It must have been an amendment. It must have been an amend- ment. Director Lawton: An amendment to the act, title 12. [33-] Q- Mr. President, do you approve a proposal in the Congress to change that $50 a month earning limit on social security 62 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] pensions, since so many people on pensions are pinched these days ? the president. I asked for an average raise of $5 a month on it in the message here. Q. I mean on their earnings outside the pension. They are limited to $50 a month. the president. I don't know anything about the details. I never was in social security except as employment director of Missouri, one time. [34.] Q. Mr. President, on the question that Pete4 asked about the Air Force hol- lering about the cutbacks that they didn't get or they wanted, isn't it also a factor that we don't want a larger deficit in the econ- omy of the country at this time? the president. Well, you know, I will answer that question in a kind of a round about way. When people come up to the President with a request they always ask for plenty, and they know they are not going to get it. So the Budget Director holds hear- ings on it, and he has all the facts before him, and then he and I sit down and decide how much they are entitled to, and that is what they get. And sometimes they go down to Congress and increase it, and some- times they go down there and get their heads cut off. Q. Mr. President, is it on that theory that you are asking Congress for more taxes? [Laughter] 4 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. the president. No. You know better than that. What I am trying to get is a pay-as-you-go program, just like I wanted when we started out, and we can afford it. That's the reason I asked for the taxes. I would like to reduce that national debt if I could, just as I did in the first place. And that is what the request is for. It has noth- ing to do with these people who are asking for money. Everybody asks the Govern- ment for all the money they think they can get, but sometimes they don't get it — not if I can help it. [35.] Q. M61 (p. 103) — scholarship program — how and by whom would the recipients be chosen? the president. In the same manner that they are chosen now. We have had them all the time. Hardly a month goes by that I don't address some organization of people who are going to school in this country, or address some people who are going to school in other countries. It will be handled in exactly the same way as it is now. It is handled in the State Department. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's two hundred and nine- tieth news conference was held in the Department of State Auditorium at 10 a.m. on Saturday, Janu- ary 19, 1952. The President was assisted in pre- senting information on the budget by John W. Snyder, Secretary of the Treasury, and by Frederick J. Lawton, Director of the Bureau of the Budget. 18 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1953. January 21, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith my recommendations for the Budget of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953. Expenditures are estimated at 85.4 billion dollars, an increase of 14.5 billion dollars over the current fiscal year, and 45.3 billion dollars over 1950, the last full fiscal year before the attack on Korea. Receipts under present tax laws are esti- mated at 71.0 billion dollars, an increase of 8.3 billion dollars over the current fiscal year, and 34.0 billion dollars over 1950. The increase in receipts will fall short of meeting the increase in expenditures. In the absence of new revenue legislation, a deficit of 14.4 billion dollars is in prospect for the fiscal year 1953, 6.2 billion dollars greater than the estimated deficit for the current fiscal year. 63 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Budget Totals [Fiscal years. In billions] 1951 actual $48.1 44.6 1952 1953 estimated estimated $67.7 $71.0 70.9 85.4 + 3.5 8.2 -14.4 1950 actual Receipts (under existing tax laws) $37. 0 Expenditures 40. 1 Deficit (—) or surplus (+) —3.1 Eighteen months ago, the unprovoked at- overseas, continued requirements of our tack upon the Republic of Korea made it atomic energy program, and further develop- clear that the Kremlin would not hesitate ment of our economic strength. By the end to resort to war in order to gain its ends. of the fiscal year 1953, we will have reached In the face of this grim evidence, this Na- or passed the peak production rates for all tion and the other nations of the free world of our major military items except some of realized that they must rearm in order to the newer model aircraft and some weapons survive. not yet in production. Since then, we have made significant This Budget calls for the largest expendi- progress in rebuilding our defenses. We tures in any year since World War II. It have more than doubled the strength of our will involve a heavy burden for our tax- armed forces. We have increased the num- payers, because the job of building the ber of our Army divisions from 10 to 18. strength we need to safeguard the security We have returned to duty more than 160 of this Nation is enormously expensive, combatant vessels from our "mothball" Despite its size, this is not a Budget for fleet. We have added more than 40 wings all-out mobilization. It is a Budget care- to our Air Force. We have greatly ex- fully planned to carry us a long way forward panded our production of military equip- on the road to security — at a pace which is ment and our ability to mobilize for any not only within our present economic ca- emergency. We have provided our allies pacity, but which will enable us to grow overseas with the critical margin of aid nee- stronger in the years to come, essary to help them to grow stronger. If new international tensions do not de- This Budget reflects the progress we have velop, and if no further aggressions are at- made thus far, and it lays the groundwork tempted, I hope we will be able to reduce for further progress. Budget expenditures after the fiscal year It reflects our progress to date in two ways. 1954. By then we should have completed First, the high rate of expenditures for mili- most of our currently planned military ex- tary equipment estimated for 1953 reflects pansion. the results of the tremendous effort that has been made during the past 18 months in getting the flow of production started. Sec- More than three-fourths of the total ex- ond, the smaller amount of new obligational penditures included in this Budget are for authority which I am recommending indi- major national security programs — military cates the substantial portion of the financial services, international security and foreign requirements for our military build-up that relations, the development of atomic energy, has been met in the appropriations already the promotion of defense production and made by the Congress. economic stabilization, civil defense, and This Budget lays the groundwork for merchant marine activities. Major national further progress by providing for additional security programs not only dominate this increases in the strength of our armed forces, Budget but also account for practically all additional deliveries of arms to our allies of the increase in total Budget expenditures BUDGET EXPENDITURES 64 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] since the attack on Korea. As the table on the following page indicates, expenditures for all other Government programs have declined 9 percent since the fiscal year 1950. This decline has occurred during the period when the costs of goods and services which the Government buys have been rising. For the fiscal year 1953, expenditures for all other Government programs will be nearly a billion dollars below the level of the present fiscal year. Within this net de- crease, some programs have been reduced, others have been held to current levels, and still others have been expanded. Budget Expenditures [Fiscal years. Amounts in billions] Expenditures for major national security programs. Expenditures for all other Government programs . . . Total Budget expenditures I have sharply reduced expenditures for those programs which can be deferred or eliminated, even though these programs bring clear benefits to the Nation and would be highly desirable in normal times. For example, many long-range programs for the development of our natural resources are being deferred in order to place greater emphasis on meeting current defense re- quirements. This Budget contains funds for only half as many general flood-control projects as my Budget of 2 years ago. New starts on flood control, reclamation, and river and harbor works have been limited to urgently needed power projects, flood-control projects in the Kansas-Missouri area, and emergency rehabilitation work which can- not be deferred. The Federal-aid highway program will remain below the authorized level of 500 million dollars, and major em- phasis is being placed on improving the net- work of roads most essential to defense and civilian traffic. Expenditures for rural elec- trification and rural telephones have been reduced. All major programs for housing and community development outside critical defense housing areas will be held substan- tially below the levels authorized by basic legislation. Many other programs, which are neces- Percent increase or de- 1950 actual 1$51 actual 1952 estimated 1953 estimated crease ( — ) 1953 over 1950 $17.8 22.3 $26.4 18.2 $49.7 21.2 $65.1 20.3 266 -9 40.1 44.6 70.9 85.4 113 sary for preserving the basic strength of this Nation, have been maintained at approxi- mately their present levels. Finally, a num- ber of programs contributing direcdy to the defense effort have been expanded — such as defense housing, aid for schools in defense areas, projects for expansion of electric power generation, and the port security pro- gram of the Coast Guard. A Budget of the scope and size that I am recommending makes it imperative that each department and agency of the Govern- ment enforce every possible economy in spending the money for which it is respon- sible. The Department of Defense, in par- ticular, must continue to place the greatest emphasis upon efficiency in the administra- tion of the military programs. In the past year, many improvements have been made in the management of the Government's affairs. Some of these improvements are outlined in the final section of this Message. NEW OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY To provide for further progress toward reaching t>ur national objectives, I am rec- ommending in this Budget a total of 84.3 billion dollars in new obligational authority for the fiscal year 1953. This is 9.2 billion 65 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents dollars less than the amount of new obliga- thority recommended for 1953, nearly half tional authority available for the current will be spent in later years. By the end fiscal year. of the fiscal year 1953, virtually all of this This Budget also includes 3.2 billion dol- authority will have been obligated, in the lars of appropriations to liquidate prior year form of contracts for necessary goods and contract authorizations. services for which delivery and payment The obligational authority either already cannot be made until the fiscal year 1954 or enacted or recommended in this Budget will later. have an important effect on expenditures in According to present indications, total future fiscal years. Under the expanding Budget expenditures will continue to be security program, there is an extended time high in the fiscal year 1954, even though lag between the enactment of obligational new obligational authority may decline authority and actual expenditures. Many further, months elapse between the time the Congress authorizes expenditures for ships, planes, budget receipts tanks, and other items of military equip- ment and the time when these items are The following table shows the source of produced, delivered, and completely paid estimated Budget receipts for the fiscal year for. Under these circumstances, the new i953> based on existing tax legislation, corn- funds authorized in one fiscal year may not pared to revised estimates of receipts for be entirely spent until several years later. the current fiscal year and actual receipts for For example, of the new obligational au- the fiscal year 195 1. Budget Receipts [Fiscal years. In millions] 1951 1952 1953 Source actual estimated estimated Direct taxes on individuals: Individual income taxes $23,365 $29,324 $32, 235 Estate and gift taxes 730 740 770 Direct taxes on corporations: Income and excess profits taxes 14, 388 22, 900 27, 800 Excises 8, 693 9, 046 9, 744 Customs 624 575 575 Employment taxes: Federal Insurance Contributions Act 3, 120 3, 850 4, 030 Federal Unemployment Tax Act 233 257 269 Railroad Retirement Tax Act 577 740 690 Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 10 10 11 Miscellaneous receipts: Existing legislation 1, 629 1, 598 1, 598 Proposed legislation 15 Deduct: Appropriation to Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund -3, 120 -3, 850 -4, 030 Refunds of receipts -2, 106 -2, 510 -2, 709 Budget receipts 48, 143 62, 680 70, 998 Note. — Estimated receipts for 1953 exclude new tax proposals. financing the security effort pay for the increased defense costs by cur- rent taxation, and that we should avoid add- When we embarked on the defense pro- ing substantially to the public debt. This gram to keep our country strong, I stated policy is important to the preservation of that sound financial policy required us to the financial strength of our Government, 66 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] to the success of the stabilization program, and to the sharing of defense costs fairly. To carry out this policy, I proposed to the Congress two separate tax measures during the latter half of 1950 and another early in 1 95 1. The Congress responded promptly to my earlier recommendations but enacted only part of the proposals I made last year. I recommended last year that the Con- gress provide at least 10 billion dollars of additional revenue and laid stress on the importance of improving the equity of the tax system. The legislation enacted by the Congress late last year will contribute little more than half of the amount I recom- mended. Since then, the needs of adequate defense have become clearer. For the fiscal year 1952, total Budget expenditures are esti- mated at about 71 billion dollars, and they are expected to rise nearly 15 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1953. While revenues under present tax laws are expected to rise, they will still fall short of meeting expenditures by a substantial amount in 1952 and an even larger amount in 1953. A pay-as-we-go tax policy is difficult to regain once we fall behind. We cannot now undertake, on a strict pay-as-we-go basis, the dual job of making up for the inadequate revenue legislation last year and meeting the increases in ex- penditures immediately ahead. However, there is still time to insure more nearly ade- quate financing for the defense program as a whole. In my judgment this calls, at the very least, for the amount of additional rev- enue by which last year's legislation fell short of my recommendations. The need for improving the equity of the tax system gives me as much concern as the need for revenue. The tax laws should not be used as a means of granting special favors or hiding special subsidies. Glaring injus- tices in our tax laws should be eliminated before those with modest means are asked to shoulder additional burdens. The Congress has made some progress in this direction, but unhappily it has also added new loopholes, as I stated at the time I signed the Revenue Act of 1951. When the Congress practices favoritism in writing tax laws, it encourages self-seekers to try to gain favored treatment. The attainment of the revenue objectives I have outlined would not fully resolve our revenue problem this year or next. The Congress should be clear about the risks involved in this course. But economic growth will continue to increase the pro- ductivity of the tax system in future years. Moreover, I hope that world conditions and the buildup of our defensive strength will permit a reduction in Federal expenditures after the fiscal year 1954. Thus, the prob- lem of financing defense should be eased once the build-up of our defensive strength has been attained. How we meet the situation in the mean- time will depend greatly on the reaction of producers and consumers in the face of unavoidable shortages and the rise in in- comes stemming from Government expend- itures. One of the key factors will be the adequacy of savings to restrain demand and to meet the investment requirements of business. We cannot, however, be complacent. It is cause for grave concern that, partly as a result of inadequate revenue legislation last year, we are now confronted with the im- practicability of financing Government ex- penditures currently out of taxes for the next year or two. Prudence demands that we return to a pay-as-we-go policy as quickly as practicable. In the meanwhile, we must be continually alert to threats to economic stability and be prepared to deal with the situation as it develops. MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS The Bureau of the Budget, in cooperation with the other Federal departments and agencies, has undertaken a comprehensive study of the fees charged by Government agencies for services to private individuals 67 [i8] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents and groups. The objective of this study is to place these services on a self-supporting basis wherever practicable, in accordance with the policy I first stated in my 1948 Budget Message and with the provisions of title V of Public Law 137, enacted in the first session of this Congress. Some of these results are reflected in this Budget, in the form of an additional 37 million dollars in reimbursements to appropriations and mis- cellaneous receipts. Some of the more sig- nificant adjustments in fee schedules, how- ever, cannot be made without legislative authority. The legislative proposals to ef- fect these adjustments will be submitted to the Congress as they are prepared. BORROWING AND THE PUBLIC DEBT On the basis of present tax rates, it is estimated that the public debt will increase from 255 billion dollars at the beginning of the current fiscal year to 260 billion dollars by June 30, 1952, and 275 billion dollars by June 30, 1953 — the present statutory limit. The prospective debt increase makes it essential that the Government continue to follow policies in the new financing and the refunding of maturing issues which rein- force the economic stabilization program. The American people can help the stabiliza- tion program by continuing to purchase sav- ings bonds and by taking other steps to increase new savings. The millions of peo- ple who own savings bonds maturing in the near future can also help to combat inflation by keeping their bonds and allowing them to continue accumulating interest, rather than cashing them at this time. Legislation enacted last year permits the holders of these bonds to earn interest on them for another 10 years without the necessity of exchanging them for new bonds. EXPENDITURES AND AUTHORIZATIONS BY MAJOR FUNCTION The following table shows estimated ex- penditures and recommended new obliga- tional authority for the fiscal year 1953, classified by major function. It also com- pares, by major function, estimated expend- itures in the fiscal year 1953 with revised estimates for the current fiscal year and with actual expenditures in 195 1. Expenditures and Authorizations by Major Function [Fiscal years. In millions] 1951 Function actual Military services $20, 462 International security and foreign relations 4, 727 Finance, commerce, and industry 176 Transportation and communication 1, 685 Natural resources 2, 051 Agriculture and agricultural resources 650 Labor 228 Housing and community development 602 Education and general research 115 Social security, welfare, and health 2, 380 Veterans' services and benefits 5, 339 General government 1, 209 Interest 5, 714 Reserve for contingencies Adjustment to daily Treasury statement — 705 Total 44, 633 Recommended Expenditures new obliga- 1952 1953 tional authority estimated estimated for 1953 $39, 753 $51, 163 $52, 359 7,196 10, 844 8,238 751 833 1,171 2,153 1,643 1,521 3,082 3,237 2,694 1,408 1,478 1,327 240 246 259 881 678 1,421 238 624 688 2,680 2,662 2,578 5,166 4,197 4,181 1,353 1,484 1,443 5,955 6,255 6,255 25 100 125 70, 881 85, 444 84, 260 68 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] MILITARY SERVICES The cost of expanding and strengthening our armed forces continues to be the largest item in the Budget. During the past 18 months our fighting men and their allies have repulsed two waves of aggression in Korea. At home we have not only supported our forces in Korea but also have made substantial progress in build- ing military strength for use in the event of an all-out emergency. We now have almost 3!/2 million men and women in our armed forces, more than twice as many as we had when Korea was attacked. Our monthly production of guns, tanks, planes, ships, and other military hard goods has increased five- fold since Korea and will continue to in- crease in the months ahead. This Budget provides not only for main- taining our present military strength, but also for building toward somewhat higher goals than we had planned a year ago. These new goals contemplate an Air Force of 143 wings, an Army of 21 divisions, a Navy with 408 major combatant vessels in the active fleet and 16 large carrier air groups, a Marine Corps of three divisions and essential supporting elements for all these services. Expenditures for military services are esti- mated at 51.2 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1953 as compared to 39.8 billion dollars in 1952, 20.5 billion dollars in 195 1, and 12.3 billion dollars in 1950. The increase is due largely to the fact that the rate of military production has risen sharply from the levels of 18 months ago and will continue to rise through the fiscal year 1953. It also reflects the costs of modern weapons, which are much higher than in World War II. I am recommending 52.4 billion dollars in new obligational authority for military services in the fiscal year 1953 as compared to 61.7 billion dollars in 1952. This reduc- tion is possible because a substantial portion of the obligational authority required to finance our military expansion has already been provided by the Congress. Military personnel. — This Budget provides Military Services [Fiscal years. In billions] Expenditures 1951 1952 1953 Cost category y -program or agency actual estimated estimated Department of Defense, military func- tions: Military personnel $7.2 $10.1 $11.0 Major procurement and production: Aircraft 2.2 5.8 11.0 Other 2.1 7.2 9.0 Acquisition and construction of real property .4 2.7 3.5 Operation and maintenance 5. 8 10. 4 12. 1. Civilian components .6 .7 .8 Research and development .8 1.0 1.4 Industrial mobilization .1 .2 .2 Department- wide activities .5 .8 1.0 Activities supporting military services : Stockpiling of strategic and critical materials .7 .8 1.1 Other .1 .1 .1 Total 20.5 39.8 51.2 1 Includes proposed legislation and supplemental of $1.5 billion. 2 Includes proposed legislation of $3-5 billion. New obligational authority 1951 1952 ] 50.7 1953' $8.2 $11.1 61.7 $11.9 8.7 14.9 14.1 13.3 14.5 7.6 2.4 4.0 2.5 11.5 13.0 12.4 .8 .7 .8 1.2 1.5 1.7 .3 .1 .1 1.3 1.2 1.0 2.9 .6 .2 .1 .1 .1 52.4 69 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents for an increase in total active armed strength from 3.6 million men at the end of the current fiscal year to 3.7 million men during the fiscal year 1953 and for an increase in expenditures for military personnel from 10. 1 billion dollars in 1952 to 11.0 billion dollars in 1953. These expenditures include provision for pay, clothing, subsistence, and transportation of our men and women in uniform. It is likely that we shall have to maintain relatively large military forces for a long time to come. This fact raises three problems with respect to the welfare of military per- sonnel that will require legislative action. The first is legislation proposed by the Ad- ministration to make increases in military pay and allowances comparable to the in- creases granted civilian employees of the Government last year. The military budget includes, under proposed legislation, an amount estimated to be sufficient to cover the cost of such an increase. Second, present laws do not in many cases provide adequate benefits for the families of servicemen who die, either while serving their country or after retirement. In rec- ognition of this need, the Congress is now considering survivors benefit legislation which would authorize a self-sustaining sys- tem based on contributions from the service- men themselves. This legislation, however, does not provide protection if service in the armed forces is terminated before retire- ment. I believe that protection should be continuous and that the most equitable way to achieve this protection is to extend the coverage of the old-age and survivors in- surance system to all members of the armed forces. Such coverage would provide the same basic protection for our service men and women that is now enjoyed by most other Americans. A military survivors benefit system should be designed to provide supplementary benefits scaled to the earn- ings in excess of those covered by the old- age and survivors insurance system. These new military benefits would supplement the payments under the old-age and survivors insurance and veterans' laws in these higher pay ranges. Third, I am concerned about the very large future obligations which are being accumulated under the present military re- tirement system. At the present time, these future obligations are not funded and an- nual appropriations cover only the military retirement costs for that year. I believe that the Congress should examine all the Federal retirement laws and the experience which we have gained under them with a view to determining whether future obli- gations for military retirement should be met by a contributory system in which career military personnel and the Govern- ment share in the establishment and main- tenance of a retirement fund adequate to meet the rapidly increasing costs of military retirement benefits. Major procurement and production. — - Funds for major procurement are used to provide our expanding armed forces with modern tanks, ships, aircraft, vehicles, am- munition, guided missiles, electronic equip- ment, and other hard goods ranging from the largest bomber to the smallest pistol cartridge. More than half of the expenditures for major procurement in the fiscal year 1953 will be for aircraft. These very large costs reflect the fact that the airplanes which we are building are much heavier and very much more complex in design and equip- ment than those of even a few years ago. In some of the new models, for example, the cost of the electronic equipment alone represents more than the entire cost of World War II planes designed for the same type of mission. Most types of military equipment require many months to manufacture. Thus, much of the expenditures for major pro- curement in the fiscal year 1953 will be from funds appropriated in earlier years. On the other hand, a large portion of the new obligational authority which I am recom- mending for the fiscal year 1953 will be used to place contracts for military equip- 70 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] ment that will be delivered and paid for in subsequent fiscal years. I am recommend- ing new authority of 21.7 billion dollars for major procurement in 1953, as compared to 29.4 billion dollars enacted for the cur- rent fiscal year. In addition to supplying our active forces with the weapons and equipment required to carry out their missions, this Budget will provide some reserves of equipment which would help supply the armed forces in the event of an all-out emergency. However, in a long-term mobilization effort such as that on which we have embarked, our policy is to rely primarily on a continuing flow of production and the ability to achieve rapid expansion of production if necessary rather than on the accumulation of large inventories of military equipment. This policy means that we will try to avoid production peaks and troughs which would unnecessarily disrupt the economy. We will also strive for the type of balance between military and civilian production which will permit us to maintain both a strong economy and a strong military pos- ture. At the same time, we will be pro- ducing weapons of the most advanced design and will keep fresh the know-how of mili- tary production. Our production effort therefore must be judged by how well it achieves these results as well as by the speed with which the goods are delivered. Acquisition and construction of real prop- erty.— The rapid expansion and moderniza- tion of our armed forces necessitates con- siderable new military construction as well as major repair and modernization of exist- ing facilities. Obligational authority for much of this work has already been enacted by the Congress, but, as is true with procure- ment funds, expenditures take place many months after the letting of contracts. Ex- penditures in 1953 are estimated at 3.5 billion dollars as compared to 2.7 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. These expenditures take account of the recommen- dations for certain additional military con- struction which I shall submit to the Con- gress in the near future. Operation and maintenance. — The opera- tion and maintenance of our military equip- ment and our military establishments require the services of many people and the pur- chase of many things. These funds are used to purchase fuels, lubricants, spare parts, and other supplies. They are also used to pay for storage, repairs, maintenance, and handling of armor, armament, and ammu- nition; to operate and maintain supply depots, service-wide transportation and com- munication facilities, and medical establish- ments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. As we continue to expand our military strength, these tasks grow in both magnitude and complexity. A considerable portion of these funds is for the pay of civilian employees engaged in operation and maintenance. Total civil- ian employment in the Department of De- fense for military functions will reach approximately 1.3 million in the current fiscal year. In fiscal year 1953, it is ex- pected to be slighdy higher and will rep- resent about half of all Federal civilian employment. Approximately 60 percent of the Department's civilian employees are en- gaged in industrial activities at arsenals, ship yards, ordnance depots, repair shops, and similar military installations. Civilian components. — The civilian com- ponents of the armed forces consist of the National Guard; the Air National Guard; the Organized Reserve units; and reserve officers' training units of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. A vital part of our long-range policy of increasing the potential military strength of this Nation consists of increasing the size and improving the preparedness of these units. Since Korea it has been necessary to draw upon our Reserves for active duty. The number of men in the Organized Reserves and the National Guard units declined from 837,000 in June 1950 to 525,000 in October 1951. This Budget provides for an increase 71 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents to a strength of 932,000 men in the civilian components by the end of the fiscal year I953' Three legislative proposals which would strengthen our civilian components are now before the Congress. The universal mili- tary training bill would provide for 6 months of military training for every able-bodied young man. The Armed Forces Reserve bill establishes three classes of Reservists — the ready, stand-by, and retired Reserves — and prescribes a more equitable and uni- form policy applicable to Reserve personnel of all services. The Reserve Officers' Train- ing Corps bill provides for a reorganization and strengthening of the college officer pro- curement programs of the services. It is contemplated that, if the statutory basis is provided, the universal military training program will be put into effect on a limited basis as early in the fiscal year 1953 as possible. It will be gradually ex- panded until all qualified young men enter the program. With the increase in the size and strength of our Reserve forces brought about through universal military training, we can ultimately work toward a progressive decrease in the size of our Regular standing forces. These three bills, if enacted without delay, would progressively increase the size and improve the quality of our civilian com- ponents and provide us with Reserve strength that can be rapidly mobilized in event of emergency. Research and development. — In building our military strength we are providing our forces with the best and most advanced weapons possible. In present-day warfare, and to an even greater extent in the future, technical superiority in weapons can mean the difference between victory and defeat. A strong research and development program is essential to insure that our productive and material resources go into weapons and equipment that are superior in quality and performance to those of any aggressor and that we will be able to maintain this supe- riority in the years to come. As a result of research and development work done in the past few years, our forces are now being equipped with new types of weapons and equipment far superior to those of World War II. More new and im- proved weapons are now going into produc- tion, and we are perfecting the development of still others which will add to our military strength in the years immediately ahead. Expenditures of the Department of De- fense for research and development are esti- mated at 1.4 billion dollars in 1953, an in- crease of 400 million dollars over 1952. Stockpiling. — For the fiscal years 1947 through 1952 the Congress provided obli- gational authority totaling 5.0 billion dollars for the stockpiling of strategic and critical materials. In the four years preceding Korea, exclusive of transfers of materials acquired under other authority, 783 million dollars was spent for materials. Since Korea there has been a rapid acceleration of the rate of stockpiling. Materials con- tracts valued at 2.3 billion dollars were placed in the 16 months ended October 31, 1 95 1. Deliveries in this same period amounted to 886 million dollars. Taking into account these expenditures and transfers, as well as price changes, the stockpile inventory at the end of October was valued at 3.3 billion dollars. We expect to have in our stockpile at the end of the fiscal year 1953, strategic and critical materials worth about 5 billion dollars at September 1 95 1 prices and will have under contract an additional 1.7 billion dollars' worth of vital materials for delivery after 1953. This re- serve of rubber, copper, tin, manganese, chromite, tungsten, cordage fibers, and more than 60 other materials will be an important source of strength in the years to come. I am recommending 155 million dollars in new obligational authority for stockpiling in the fiscal year 1953. This is about 435 million dollars less than the Congress enacted for the current fiscal year. Two develop- ments account in large measure for the decrease. First, additional expansion of supply will be financed from Defense Pro- 72 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] duction Act borrowing authority, thereby re- ducing the need to place long-term contracts under stockpile authority. Second, the quantity of materials available for stockpil- ing in 1952, although large, will be less than originally anticipated because of the increase in consumption of materials for military purposes and expansion of productive ca- pacity. Therefore, a portion of the funds provided in earlier years will be available to acquire materials in 1953. Expenditures for stockpiling in fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 1.1 billion dollars as compared to 800 million dollars in 1952. This increase reflects the fact that, because of actions taken in earlier years to expand supplies, more material will be available for stockpiling in 1953. Other activities supporting military serv- ices.— Included in this part of the Budget are the net receipts of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation for production and sale of tin, synthetic rubber, and abaca fibers and for the liquidation of certain assets and lia- bilities remaining from its World War II programs. Other activities supporting the military services are mainly the research pro- grams of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the activities of the Selec- tive Service System, and the National Se- curity Training Commission. INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS The vast rearmament program upon which this Nation has entered has a single objective — the building of defensive forces and a mobilization base which will serve as a deterrent to communist aggression and which can, if the deterrent fails, give us and our allies the strength to defeat the aggression. For that purpose, strength within the United States is not enough. The areas most vulnerable to aggression are not in the Western Hemisphere. They are in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Asia. To deter aggression and provide for our own security require not only building up our own strength but also building strength in these areas. The foreign policy and international pro- grams of the United States, as well as our own military program, recognize that fact. That is why American forces are now serv- ing with our allies in Korea and Europe. That is why the Congress last year author- ized the mutual security program of military and economic assistance to nations which have common security interests with us and a determination to preserve their freedom. The bulk of expenditures for international security in this Budget are for military and economic assistance. Other major expendi- tures are for the campaign of overseas in- formation and education, for participation in the United Nations and other international organizations, and for the regular activities that make up the conduct of foreign affairs. Military and economic assistance. — I will soon submit to the Congress specific recom- mendations for the mutual security pro- gram totaling about 7.9 billion dollars. International Security and Foreign Relations [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Military and economic assistance : Present programs Mutual security program (proposed legislation) . Conduct of foreign affairs : Overseas information and education Participation in international organizations, and other Total Recommended Expenditures new obliga- 1951 1952 1953 tional authority actual estimated estimated for 1953 $4, 497 $6, 868 40 190 110 218 $7, 186 3,339 157 162 $14 7,900 170 154 4,727 7,196 10, 844 8,238 73 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Expenditures for military, economic, and technical assistance in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 10.5 billion dollars, as com- pared with 6.9 billion dollars in the present fiscal year. The bulk of the assistance will go directly toward helping to build ade- quate military defenses. The program will also include substantial sums for technical assistance and development work, under the Point Four concept, to help the people of economically underdeveloped areas move forward in solving their most pressing prob- lems. The solving of these problems is of vital importance in meeting the threat of subversion, which in many areas of the free world is graver than the threat of military attack. The increase in mutual security program expenditures will be due to a sharp accelera- tion in deliveries of military equipment to our allies overseas. Expenditures for these deliveries and for certain other forms of military assistance, such as training, are estimated at 4.0 billion dollars in the current fiscal year and 8.0 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1953. During the past 18 months these deliveries have been smaller than originally planned, partly because of the demands of the Korean conflict, and partly because of the time required for the production of complex long-lead-time equipment. Our production of weapons is now increasing at a rate which will make possible deliveries in the magnitudes required for the sched- uled build-up of free world forces. Accord- ingly, I have directed that a policy of allocat- ing military equipment be established which will assure that United States forces in Europe and NATO forces, as well as other forces of certain foreign countries^ which in the case of war are most likely to be first attacked, are adequately equipped. Our mutual security program is a vital and indispensable element in building secu- rity for the free world as a whole and for this country. Under this program, friendly nations overseas will be able to obtain the crucial margin of resources — military or economic — which they need in order to de- velop rapidly their own potentials of strength against aggression and subversion. The strength they can build will be joined with the strength we are building in the total fight for security and peace. We cannot, as two world wars have proved, isolate ourselves from threats to other free men. This Nation cannot stand by and see free peoples overrun. In the end, that could only mean isolation of this country in a world organized against it by Soviet masters. Military and economic assistance to Europe. — Through the efforts of the Euro- peans themselves, combined with the addi- tional resources we are making available through our military and economic assist- ance programs, real progress is being made in Europe toward the urgent objective of achieving adequate defense forces. As of 18 months ago, the North Atlantic Treaty countries in Europe had virtually no combat-ready defensive units in all of Continental Western Europe, except for certain naval forces and the ground divi- sions and air squadrons on occupation duty in Germany. Since then, the active strength of their forces has been substantially in- creased; in terms of men on active duty, their effective ground strength now exceeds that of our own Army. Air cover and naval support are being provided in increas- ing amounts. Moreover, the units have been brought to a higher state of effective- ness through longer periods of service and more thorough training and through sub- stantial additions to equipment including replacement of obsolete weapons. Finally, many of the scattered units of the various countries are now, under the command of General Eisenhower, being welded into a single fighting force, and supporting sys- tems of communications, supply, and bases are being developed. Combined defense expenditures of the nine European mem- bers of the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- nization have been increased sharply, from the equivalent of 4.5 billion dollars in fiscal year 1950 to an amount estimated at more 74 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] than 9.0 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. Over the coming months progress in building European defenses will be even more rapid, under plans recently developed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Temporary Council Committee, under United States chairmanship. This Com- mittee has reviewed the present status of European defenses and the further require- ments estimated by the military leaders of the member nations and by General Eisen- hower's international headquarters. It has developed a realistic plan of action for a rapid build-up of effective defense forces backed by well-trained and quickly mobiliza- ble reserves. This plan of action is designed to see that nonessentials and duplications are stripped out and that the highest priority jobs are done first. In spite of these reduc- tions, it will still be necessary for many of the member countries to make substantially larger efforts than previously planned, and we, in addition to our contribution of forces, will have to provide expedited deliveries of military equipment and economic assistance. On the basis of this new plan of action two important conclusions emerge. First, it is now clear that within 12 more months Western Europe can have a compact force which would offer strong resistance in the event of an attack. Secondly, under the new plan it is now clear that within a few years it will be possible to attain a level of Western European defenses which would make in- vasion there so costly, and so unlikely of success, that the danger of its being attempted would become remote. Our mutual security aid is an essential component required to achieve the new de- fense plan on schedule. We will provide planes, tanks, guns, production equipment, raw materials, and other supplies which are needed to carry out the plan but which the Europeans cannot obtain from their own resources. The largest part of this aid will be in the form of military equipment. The equip- ment we provide will have the direct effect of bringing to combat readiness additional air wings, ground divisions, and naval units defending Western Europe against aggres- sion. To an increasing extent, the equip- ment we provide will be procured in Europe. This will somewhat lighten the production burden on this country, and by stimulating European military production will help to bring nearer the day when Europe will be able to maintain her forces without further assistance from us. To enable the European countries to ex- pand their defense programs on schedule, other aid in the form of commodities — eco- nomic aid — will be needed. The economy of Europe is undergoing a serious strain, in part because of its own expanding defense programs and in part because of world price movements associated with the defense buildup of the free world as a whole. Two of the key countries, Britain and France, have been unable in recent months to pay for essential imports except by dipping deeply into their limited dollar reserves. As the European defense programs expand, and industry and manpower are directed toward defense rather than producing for export, European dollar deficits will continue to be serious although not nearly so large as those which had to be dealt with in the immediate postwar years. To meet these problems it will be neces- sary for the European countries to take ad- ditional measures to facilitate allocation of resources to defense and to prevent internal inflation. But despite such measures, the Europeans will require our aid in meeting the problem of dollar deficits without inter- ruption of the defense build-up. The mutual security program will also include assistance to certain European coun- tries not included in the North Atlantic Treaty. This Budget includes funds for military and economic assistance to help maintain the independence of Yugoslavia, which stands as an example to Soviet satel- lites that independence can be achieved. Greece and Turkey, key barriers to Soviet expansion into the eastern Mediterranean, 75 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents are maintaining large forces which are ex- pected to be integrated soon into the North Atlantic Treaty defense system. Through military and economic assistance we will burden. Negotiations are also in process continue to assist them in carrying this heavy leading toward German participation in European defense. Assistance to other areas of the jree world. — The vulnerability to internal and ex- ternal aggression of many parts of the non- European free world, especially the Middle East and Asia, requires that we make the strongest efforts to help these areas gain in strength and stability. Our mutual security program for these areas, as compared with Europe, will place proportionately more emphasis on economic aid and technical assistance than on supply- ing military equipment. So long as condi- tions exist to feed the fires of communist agitation — conditions of poverty, disease, il- literacy, and economic stagnation — there will be the continuous danger of subversion and internal collapse. These problems are deep rooted and stubborn, but they can be solved. Under the Act for International De- velopment and other legislation, this country adopted a long-range policy of working di- rectly with the underdeveloped countries to help them solve these problems and lay a firm foundation upon which they can build with their own resources. This policy has helped them to achieve progress within their own economies, and to increase their contri- bution of vital raw materials to the rest of the free world. In each instance our assist- ance is predicated on the maximum possible effort by the recipient country to solve its own problems. In the Middle East, events during the past year have emphasized the urgency of achiev- ing stability and more adequate defenses. Much can be accomplished by programs of technical assistance to deal with basic prob- lems of low productivity which underlie much of the region's difficulties. This Budget provides funds for our contribution for the second year of the 3-year program for reintegration of Arab refugees, and other funds for assistance to the Arab states, Iran, and Israel. In Asia, the mutual security program for the fiscal year 1953 will provide for a con- tinued flow of military equipment, to assist the troops of France and of the Associated States of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, in their gallant fight against the communist insurgents in Indochina. We are provid- ing, and will continue to provide under this Budget, military equipment and other sup- plies to the Chinese forces defending For- mosa. Philippine troops, with weapons supplied under the mutual security pro- gram, are making good progress in sup- pressing the communists who have been a dangerous threat to the economic and polit- ical development of the republic. The needs of Asian countries for economic aid vary substantially from country to coun- try. Some countries are rich in resources; here the great need is for technical assistance to help them more quickly master the com- plex problems of developing and organizing their resources for the welfare of their peo- ple. In Indonesia, for example, technical assistance will be provided to help this young republic develop its resources and establish essential administrative, health, and educa- tional facilities, so as to increase the stability of its democratic government. To other countries in Asia we are supplying tech- nical assistance and also developmental aid to supplement their own development pro- grams. In India, for example, the govern- ment has undertaken a large-scale program of agricultural expansion, in order to meet the increasing pressure of population in re- lation to food production. In spite of mobilizing every resource it can, India will require some aid from us to help solve her agricultural problem. In Latin America it is essential that we continue our part of the jointly financed pro- grams of technical assistance, which are making an important contribution toward solving problems of health, education, and agricultural productivity. The Latin- Amer- 76 Harry S. Truman, J952 Jan. 21 [18] ican economy continues to attract a large flow of private American capital. Key development projects, including those for strategic materials, will continue to be fi- nanced primarily on a loan basis, especially by the Export-Import Bank under its re- cently increased loan authority. This Budget also contains limited funds for mili- tary assistance to Latin America. We are also contributing to United Na- tions technical assistance programs. In ad- dition, the broad purposes of the Point Four concept are being furthered by private in- vestment, by loans from our Export-Import Bank, many of them for strategic materials development, and by loans from the Inter- national Bank for Reconstruction and De- velopment. In preparing the mutual secu- rity program for underdeveloped countries, careful consideration has been given to all loan possibilities. Overseas information. — Expenditures for our overseas information and educational exchange program, basic to our Campaign of Truth, are estimated at 157 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953. The increase of 47 million dollars over the current fiscal year will be needed for expanded radio facilities, including ship-borne transmitters, capable of reaching more and more people behind the Iron Curtain, and overpowering Soviet "jamming" attempts; for transfer of the Army's information program in Japan to the State Department; and for a general intensification of our efforts in the most critical areas of the world. This vital program is coordinated with other parts of our total security effort. So- viet propaganda and agitation use every possible device, direct and concealed, to per- vert the hopes and play upon the fears of free peoples. Internal subversion, but- tressed by propaganda techniques rather than the commitment of Soviet armies, has played the leading part since World War II in the expansion of the Soviet Empire. Against these menacing instruments of the cold war, the Campaign of Truth has been making substantial gains. The overseas information program, speaking through every possible medium — radio, press, motion pictures, information centers, exchange of persons — is exposing the true nature of the communist menace and explaining to the rest of the world the truth about our objectives. Other foreign affairs. — In addition to the funds for overseas information and educa- tion, this Budget includes expenditures of 162 million dollars for the conduct of other foreign affairs. We and our allies must make sure, through the United Nations and other channels, that war does not come about from a misunderstanding of our true motives or from a failure to understand our determi- nation to resist tyranny. FINANCE, COMMERCE, AND INDUSTRY The authority granted under the Defense Production Act has been indispensable in broadening the economic base for our se- curity effort and in increasing defense out- put. With this authority, we are giving ex- tensive financial aid to defense industries through Government loans, guarantees of private loans, and contracts to purchase raw materials and equipment. Through alloca- tions, scarce materials are channeled to es- sential users. Controls over prices, wages, and rents, as well as selective credit controls, are necessary for economic stabilization. Unfortunately the act is not strong enough to insure that we can hold the line on prices. I therefore urge that the act be improved as well as extended beyond the present expira- tion date of June 30, 1952. Net expenditures for finance, commerce, and industry during the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 833 million dollars, compared to 751 million dollars in 1952 and 176 mil- lion dollars in 1951. The sharp increase since 1951 has been due entirely to the ex- pansion of programs promoting defense production and economic stabilization. The proposed extension of the Defense Produc- tion Act accounts for all except 40 million dollars of the new obligational authority of 1,171 million dollars recommended for 1953. 77 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Finance, Commerce, and Industry [Fiscal years. In millions] Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) Program or agency Promotion of defense production and economic stabilization : Expansion and allocation of production : Funds appropriated to the President : Present programs Proposed legislation Department of Commerce : Present programs Proposed legislation Small Defense Plants Administration : Present programs Proposed legislation Other: Present programs Proposed legislation Price, wage, and rent controls: Economic Stabilization Agency: Present programs Proposed legislation Business loans and guarantees (Reconstruction Finance Corporation) Promotion or regulation of trade and industry : Department of Commerce Antimonopoly programs and other Promotion or regulation of financial institutions: Reconstruction Finance Corporation Securities and Exchange Commission and other . . 1951 actual Total 1 Less than one-half million dollars. Expansion of production. — The expansion of defense production is primarily the job of private enterprise. The Government's responsibility is to guide and assist the ex- pansion wherever necessary. Under the general supervision of the Di- rector of Defense Mobilization and the De- fense Production Administrator, Federal agencies with defense responsibilities are using the authority of the Defense Produc- tion Act and related legislation to give broad financial aid to defense industries. Nine Government agencies engaged in defense procurement have guaranteed about 1.5 bil- lion dollars in loans by private banks to meet working capital requirements of defense contractors and subcontractors. Substantial progress also has been made $138 1952 estimated $501 13 50 1953 estimated $301 285 9 41 4 9 0) 26 112 —19 17 9 —16 7 78 17 9 —30 7 14 135 —1 18 9 —3 7 176 751 833 Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 $900 6 45 28 150 18 9 1,171 in expanding defense production by loans, commitments to purchase, and purchases of equipment and materials under the borrow- ing authority of 2.1 billion dollars granted in the Defense Production Act. The De- fense Materials Procurement Agency has al- ready been authorized to make 600 million dollars in purchases and purchase commit- ments for rubber, magnesium, copper, alumi- num, manganese, and other critical ma- terials, and 260 million dollars in advances and purchases to finance the expanded pro- duction of urgendy needed machine tools. Under the same authority the Department of Agriculture is financing expansions in supply of a few key agricultural products, and the Department of the Interior is mak- ing advances for exploration and develop- 78 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] ment of domestic mineral resources. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation has been authorized to use 275 million dol- lars from the same borrowing authority for loans, mainly to expand facilities for pro- duction of machine tools, copper, aluminum, and steel. These loans are in addition to the substantial volume of loans for defense purposes made by the Corporation under its regular authority. Similar loans in foreign areas will be made by the Export-Import Bank. Using these and other means, we are mak- ing great strides toward achieving increased economic strength. By the end of the fiscal year 1953, we will have steel ingot capacity of about 119 million tons compared to 109 million tons at present and 100 million tons 18 months ago. Programs already under- way will enable us to nearly double 1950 primary aluminum production by the end of 1953, and further increases in capacity are being planned. Production of machine tools is making good progress. Magnesium production will soon be more than seven times the pre-Korean level. Increases in supplies of other critical raw materials such as manganese, tungsten, and molybdenum are also assured over the next few years. At the same time, we are helping friendly na- tions to expand their productive capacity. These efforts will continue until our total supplies are adequate to meet both military and civilian requirements. The immediate effect on the Budget and the ultimate net cost to the Government of all these programs will be small compared to the size of the transactions and their contri- bution to the security effort. Most of the loan guarantees will not require any net ex- penditures, since premiums paid are ex- pected to cover all expenses and losses. According to present plans, the existing borrowing authority in the Defense Produc- tion Act will be fully obligated by the end of the fiscal year 1952. I therefore expect to recommend that the borrowing authority be increased by 900 million dollars to per- mit the financial assistance necessary pri- marily for long-range development of new sources of strategic raw materials. This will involve additional net expenditures of 285 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953. Allocation of resources. — Defense produc- tion is absorbing a steadily increasing share of the Nation's resources. For some time, defense needs and normal civilian demand for some materials and products have been greater than the supply. Under the general supervision of the Defense Production Ad- ministration, the National Production Au- thority in the Department of Commerce has established allocations and other controls over the use of these items in order to in- crease our defense production quickly and efficiendy. The Controlled Materials Plan has been a valuable aid in shifting steel, alu- minum, and copper to the uses which best promote the security effort. The needs of defense and other essential users are assured preference through a priorities system. The burden on small business has been mini- mized through exemptions for small orders, self-certification procedures, and speedier processing. Exports also are being chan- neled by the Department of Commerce to meet the most essential requirements of friendly nations. These controls are necessary to make sure that defense programs and essential civilian activities will receive necessary equipment and materials and that other users get their fair share of any remaining supply. Small business. — The security effort has necessarily disturbed the normal peacetime patterns of business activity. The problem of adjustment has been especially serious for many small businesses. The newly estab- lished Small Defense Plants Administration, the Department of Commerce, and other agencies are helping small business make this adjustment. Major attention is being given to increasing the opportunities of small business to participate in defense production, as either prime contractors or subcontractors, and to obtain a fair allocation of materials. Where other public and private credit facili- ties prove inadequate, the Reconstruction 79 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Finance Corporation will make loans upon the recommendation of the Small Defense Plants Administration. The agency is also planning to help groups of small businesses organize production pools to handle larger defense contracts. Finally, where necessary to assure adequate participation by small business, the Small Defense Plants Admin- istration will itself take prime defense con- tracts, subcontracting the work to small plants. Appropriations required for the re- volving fund to finance these contracting and subcontracting operations account for 25 of the 28 million dollars in appropriations rec- ommended for the agency under proposed legislation in the fiscal year 1953. Price, wage, and rent controls. — As mili- tary production increases, inflationary pres- sures also increase. This is so because mili- tary production adds to private incomes while decreasing the supply of goods which consumers can buy. Increased taxes, coupled with price, wage, rent, and credit controls, together with vol- untary restraints by consumers, business, and labor, have prevented a sharp rise in prices during the past year. The increase in in- flationary pressures expected during the com- ing fiscal year, however, will require not only higher taxes, increased restraints on credit, and voluntary saving to absorb ex- cess purchasing power, but also more effec- tive direct controls. If the price-control program is to be both effective and fair, the staff of the Office of Price Stabilization must be strengthened. The agency has now reached a crucial stage in the development of its price-control program, the establishment of regulations specifically designed for indi- vidual commodities, industries, and geo- graphical areas — including definite dollars- and-cents ceilings wherever possible. The administration of these regulations during the period of increasing pressure on prices requires a larger staff able to handle com- plaints and applications for price adjust- ments prompdy, and to assist businessmen in complying with the regulations. The Wage Stabilization Board and Salary Stabilization Board have established their major policy regulations. Both Boards must expand their present staffs to enforce these regulations and to handle the increas- ing backlog of cases. Ineffective enforce- ment would give violators an unfair advan- tage in recruiting employees, and thus hurt both the defense effort and economic stabilization. The influx of military personnel and de- fense workers into key defense areas has caused a sharp increase in the demand for rental housing. To meet the danger of excessive rent increases, the Director of De- fense Mobilization and the Secretary of Defense have already authorized the imposi- tion of rent controls in about 100 areas. In each case, special aids — discussed under Housing and Community Development — are also being provided to encourage rapid expansion in the supply of rental housing. The Office of Rent Stabilization is now ad- ministering rent controls in these and other areas covering about 6.8 million rental units. It is estimated that by the end of the fiscal year 1953, tenants in 10 million rental units will be protected by Federal rent control. In the fiscal year 1953, under the proposed extension of the Defense Production Act, the Economic Stabilization Agency will re- quire new obligational authority of 150 mil- lion dollars for administration of price, wage, and rent controls. Total expenditures are estimated at 149 million dollars, 37 million dollars more than estimated for the fiscal year 1952. This additional amount will be re- quired largely to keep the agency — particu- larly the Office of Price Stabilization — at the level of operations which it should reach by the end of this fiscal year. Business loans and guarantees. — At the same time that we are making certain that credit is not a bottleneck in the defense ef- fort, we are curtailing nondefense loans. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation is making only those loans which assist mili- tary or essential civilian production. New commitments — including loans recommend- ed by the Small Defense Plants Administra- 80 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] tion — are estimated at 166 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 and 260 million dollars in 1953, compared to 285 million dollars in 1 95 1. Increased collections on outstanding loans are a major reason for the anticipated decline in net expenditures. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION Efficient transportation and communica- tion services are critical factors in an econ- omy mobilizing for defense. Current eco- nomic activity has already created traffic loads which in total exceed any peacetime peak levels. Further traffic increases are in prospect as defense production continues to expand. The Federal Government is assisting the transportation and communication indus- tries to adjust their operations to these ex- panding needs. In addition, the Govern- ment has temporarily undertaken new activities to meet abnormal requirements arising out of the defense emergency. Among these are the port protection activi- ties of the Coast Guard, the direct operation of merchant vessels by the National Ship- ping Authority, and the transportation con- trols of the Defense Transport Administra- tion and other agencies. Transportation and Communication [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Promotion of merchant marine : Maritime Administration Inland Waterways Corporation Provision of navigation aids and facilities : Coast Guard Corps of Engineers Panama Canal Company Promotion of aviation (Civil Aeronautics Adminis- tration) Provision of highways : Bureau of Public Roads : Present programs Extension of Federal-aid and forest high- way programs (proposed legislation) Alaska roads and other Postal service (deficit): Present programs Postal rate increase (proposed legislation) Regulation of transportation : Interstate Commerce Commission Civil Aeronautics Board Defense Transport Administration : Present programs Extension of Defense Production Act (pro- posed legislation) Other services to transportation : Reconstruction Finance Corporation Coast and Geodetic Survey Alaska Railroad Treasury Department Regulation of communication Total 1 Less than one-half million dollars. Recommended Net expendi tures or net receipts (- -) new obliza- 1951 1952 1953 ! tional authority actual estimated estimated for 1953 $101 $287 1 230 $164 $72 162 239 239 121 118 100 115 18 10 9 3 160 430 26 626 11 3 12 16 —1 7 1,685 181 454 26 814 11 4 -5 12 12 -11 7 2,153 166 459 21 669 -225 12 4 CO -13 12 15 1,643 143 12 417 20 669 -225 12 4 13 16 1,521 8l [i8] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Net expenditures for transportation and communication will be reduced from 2.2 billion dollars in the present fiscal year to 1.6 billion dollars in 1953, assuming enact- ment of the further increases in postal rates which I am recommending. Merchant marine. — The primary objective of our merchant marine policy is to assure an active nucleus of trained maritime labor and management, which can serve as the foundation for the expansion of shipping operations in the event of full mobilization. To achieve this objective, the Government provides operating and construction sub- sidies for shipping services on essential trade routes. Abnormal requirements aris- ing from the present emergency are being met through temporary new programs rather than by adding to our permanent subsidy legislation. One such emergency program is the con- struction of modern cargo ships, capable of operating at high speeds for greater safety from possible submarine attack. The Maritime Administration in the Department of Commerce is now building 35 such ves- sels and may have to undertake additional construction in future years. Expenditures for this new program, which were less than 1 million dollars in the fiscal year 1951, will increase to an estimated 134 million dollars in 1952 and 144 million dollars in 1953. The present emergency has also made it necessary for the Government to undertake direct operation of merchant vessels in or- der to supplement privately owned shipping capacity. The National Shipping Author- ity, within the Maritime Administration, is operating about 470 vessels reactivated from the reserve of war-built ships. This repre- sents nearly one-fourth of our active mer- chant fleet. Through this program, the Government has relieved a world-wide shortage of dry cargo vessels and has helped to stabilize cargo rates at a reasonable level. The National Shipping Authority is now handling much of the abnormal traffic re- sulting from the Korean conflict, coal ship- ments to Europe, grain shipments to India, and other emergency needs. Revenues de- rived from these operations are expected to exceed expenditures by 99 million dollars in 1953. These net receipts into the Au- thority's revolving fund will account for most of the decline in over-all maritime expenditures between 1952 and 1953. The long-term development of a healthy, privately owned merchant marine is de- pendent upon the sound administration of the direct subsidy programs authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936. The Federal Maritime Board now has under re- view the subsidy determinations for postwar years and is developing improved procedures for determining such subsidy rates in the future. As these determinations are brought up to date, operating subsidy expenditures will reflect substantial retroactive payments for past years, as well as a more complete coverage of current obligations. Expendi- tures for this program are estimated at 60 million dollars for the fiscal year 1952 and 75 million dollars for 1953. In addition to the direct subsidies for ves- sel operation and construction, the Mer- chant Marine Act provides the shipping industry with substantial indirect aid in the form of special tax concessions. While I strongly favor all assistance necessary to maintain an adequate merchant marine, I again recommend to the Congress the im- mediate reduction of present unwarranted tax benefits for the shipping industry as an initial step toward the elimination of this hidden form of subsidy. Whenever the Congress finds that public policy requires Government assistance in any field, it should provide that assistance directly through appropriations and not in- directly through preferential tax measures. Such tax provisions generally fail to dis- tribute the assistance where it is most needed and where it will produce the best results. Moreover, they provide concealed benefits which are exempt from the annual scrutiny the Congress normally gives appropriations. Because they are concealed, these benefits are difficult to reduce or to eliminate when 82 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] the need for them no longer exists. For more than a quarter of a century, the Government has operated the Inland Waterways Corporation, primarily to pro- mote the development of common carrier barge service on the Mississippi and Warrior Rivers and their tributaries. In establish- ing the Corporation, the Congress intended that it be sold to private operators after it had demonstrated the economic feasibility of full-scale common carrier operations. That possibility has never been demonstrated with sufficient certainty to encourage any substantial offer for these properties. The equipment has deteriorated seriously and will require rehabilitation if the Govern- ment is to continue these services. I recom- mend that the Congress consider promptly whether to relax the statutory conditions which now limit sale of the Corporation or whether to appropriate sufficient funds to permit the line to be rehabilitated. Navigation aids and facilities. — The Coast Guard, which has important peace- time responsibilities for promoting marine safety and enforcing our maritime laws, must also be ready to provide direct assist- ance to the Navy in the event of war. To increase its state of readiness for any future emergency, the Coast Guard is increasing the crew complement of its vessels and of its shore stations outside the continental limits. It is also expanding its reserve training program. These emergency meas- ures, together with its new program for protecting the Nation's ports against sabo- tage, will increase expenditures from 162 million dollars in the fiscal year 1951 to an estimated 230 million dollars in 1952 and 239 million dollars in 1953. River and harbor improvements by the Corps of Engineers will be held to a low level in 1953, in keeping with the over-all policy of restricting public works activity during the present emergency. Only one new navi- gation project is being recommended, and construction of existing projects will be cur- tailed. River and harbor navigation ex- penditures will decline from an estimated 118 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 to 100 million dollars in 1953. On July 1, 1 95 1, the Panama Canal Com- pany was established to permit integrated operation of the Canal and its supplementary commercial activities on a more businesslike basis. The Company is now reviewing the level of its commercial charges. Apart from necessary capital oudays, its operations will be placed on a self-sustaining basis in the fiscal year 1953. Aviation. — Federal promotion of civil aviation has contributed to the spectacular growth of air transportation since the end of World War II. During the past six years, aircraft capacity operated by sched- uled and nonscheduled airlines has expanded tenfold. This increased capacity, together with its supporting ground facilities, repre- sents an important mobilization reserve — as demonstrated by the present participation of civil carriers in carrying military personnel and supplies to Korea. The Civil Aeronautics Administration in the Department of Commerce operates navi- gation and landing aids, enforces safety regu- lations, provides financial assistance for local airport construction, and conducts various other programs aimed at increased safety and efficiency of aviation operations. Many of these facilities and services are essential for military as well as civil aircraft and have been developed with full attention to the needs of both groups. The present emergency, which has sub- stantially increased air traffic, has correspond- ingly increased the normal workload for avi- ation programs. It has also required the inauguration of new activities such as the identification and control of air traffic for purposes of air defense. Despite these in- creased responsibilities, expenditures for the fiscal year 1953 will be held below the level of 1952. This results largely from the limi- tation of airport grants and airway moderni- zation to those projects which are most es- sential in this emergency period. In addition to basic facilities and services, the Federal Government also provides finan- 83 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents rial aid to the airlines for their commercial development. These subsidies, which are now merged with compensation for carry- ing mail, should be provided separately so that the Congress and the public may have a full opportunity to evaluate them. The Civil Aeronautics Board recently completed a study estimating the amount of subsidy contained in air-mail payments to domestic carriers and now has under way a similar study for international lines. Although these studies represent a significant step in the right direction, the full benefits of sub- sidy separation will be obtained only when the Board is able to make direct subsidy pay- ments from funds appropriated for that spe- cific purpose. I therefore recommend again that airline subsidies be completely separated from payments for carrying the mail. Any such separation should apply uniform standards to all carriers, international as well as domestic. For the fiscal year 1951, the Civil Aero- nautics Board has estimated that the sub- sidies to domestic airlines alone amounted to nearly 35 million dollars, or 56 percent of the total mail payments received by those lines. In view of the increased profitability of airline operations, the Board is taking immediate steps to reduce or eliminate sub- sidies wherever possible. The airline in- dustry as a whole has now reached a stage of development where it needs less Govern- ment support than in former years, and this subsidy should be curtailed. As an im- portant further step in the direction of fi- nancial independence, the industry should begin in the near future to bear its fair share of the cost of federally provided facilities through a system of airway user charges. Highways. — The Nation's highways re- quire major improvement if they are to handle adequately the steadily increasing levels of motor vehicle traffic. Under the Federal-aid highway program, the Bureau of Public Roads in the Department of Com- merce provides grants-in-aid to assist State and local governments in the financing of needed highway construction. Partly as a result of the steel shortage, this program will remain below the authorized annual level of 500 million dollars, with expenditures esti- mated at 412 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 and 400 million dollars in 1953. Within this program, special emphasis is being placed on the Interstate Highway System — a limited network of roads most essential to both civilian and defense high- way traffic. Federal-aid highway authorizations under existing legislation have been fully appor- tioned to the States, and this legislation should be extended in the present session of the Congress for an additional two-year period. Although a need clearly exists for a high level of road improvement, State and local governments must continue to assume the primary responsibility for financing such construction. Under present circumstances, the Federal Government should concentrate its highway aid on those projects of national interest which are most urgently needed for defense and essential civilian transportation. A new authorization of 400 million dollars annually — 100 million dollars below the present authorization — should enable the Government to discharge this responsibility. Nearly 25 million dollars will be spent in the fiscal year 1953 for direct Federal con- struction of main highways through the na- tional forests. I recommend that this program be extended for an additional two years at an annual level of 17.5 million dol- lars, or 2.5 million dollars below the current authorization. In addition to its continuing highway pro- grams, the Bureau of Public Roads now has responsibility for constructing access roads to military installations, defense plants, and sources of strategic materials. The authori- zation for this program was recently in- creased to 45 million dollars, and expendi- tures are estimated at 8 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 and 27 million dollars in 1953. Only roads of special defense urgency, which are not required for normal civilian traffic, will be constructed under this au- thorization. 84 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] Postal service. — I am seriously concerned about the excessive levels to which the postal deficit has risen in postwar years. For the fiscal years 1946 through 1952, the cumu- lative postal deficit will exceed 3 billion dol- lars. This huge loss reflects the failure of postal rates to keep pace with the substan- tial postwar increases in salaries, transporta- tion charges, and other operating costs. Postal rates were raised during the first ses- sion of the present Congress, and most of the new rates will take effect by the beginning of the fiscal year 1953. However, these in- creases— insufficient even in relation to the costs existing at the time of their enact- ment— were more than offset by salary in- creases which were concurrently enacted. They have since been made even more in- adequate by railroad rate increases recently authorized by the Interstate Commerce Com- mission. The Postmaster General is continuing his program of mechanizing operations and is taking other steps to improve the efficiency of the postal service. The Department is modernizing its motor vehicle service. It has instituted an improved money-order system, revised its accounting procedures, and made other improvements in the man- agement of its affairs. The average output of postal employees per man-hour has in- creased by more than 10 percent since 1945. To further improve efficiency, I again rec- ommend early enactment, with certain amendments, of the Post Office Department reorganization bill. This legislation would permit appointment of postmasters by the Postmaster General under the classified civil service and would otherwise strengthen the administration of the postal operation. However, the maximum potential improve- ments in efficiency cannot in themselves re- sult in any major reduction of the postal deficit. The only effective means of re- ducing the deficit to a reasonable level is through a substantial increase in postal rates. On the basis of postal rates now enacted, the postal deficit for the fiscal year 1953 would be nearly 670 million dollars. With the exception of first-class mail, all postal services will be operated at a loss in 1953. According to preliminary estimates of the Post Office Department, the loss on second- class mail alone will amount to roughly 250 million dollars. The newspapers and maga- zines which use this class of mail now bene- fit from rates which cover only a small frac- tion of cost, thus receiving a large and unjustified subsidy. Another major sub- sidy goes to those who distribute advertising circulars and other material through third- class mail, on which the loss in 1953 is esti- mated at about 150 million dollars. Parcel post and foreign mail will sustain losses estimated at approximately 125 million dol- lars and 75 million dollars, respectively. In the interest of sound fiscal and postal policy, the heavy losses experienced on these various classes of mail should be immediately reduced and eventually eliminated. The postal deficit as a whole should be reduced to a level representing the cost of Govern- ment mail, other services to Federal agen- cies, and similar items which are properly chargeable to general tax revenues. To achieve this objective, additional revenue of about 500 million dollars annually must be raised through increased postal rates. I recommend that a major part of this in- crease be authorized during the present ses- sion of the Congress and that the balance be provided one year later so as to permit a reasonable transition to the new rates. Specifically, I recommend immediate rate increases adequate to yield 300 million dol- lars on an annual basis. Part of this increase can be effected by administrative action of the Postmaster General and will not require action by the Congress. This Budget as- sumes that the new rates will become effec- tive for only part of the fiscal year 1953 and that additional revenue actually received in that year will amount to 225 million dollars. The Postmaster General will shortly pre- sent specific rate proposals designed to carry out this recommendation, and I most strongly urge prompt and favorable action by the Congress. 85 55-672—66 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents NATURAL RESOURCES Natural resources are strategic assets in our effort to build the military strength necessary to discourage aggressors. But we must look beyond the short term and pro- vide for continued expansion of our econ- omy. This requires an adequate supply of basic resources — minerals, fuels, water, power, agricultural and forest products. Such a supply can no longer be taken for granted. If we are to continue to strengthen our Nation, we must improve our use and conservation of existing resources and in- crease our efforts to find and develop new ones. My 1953 Budget recommendations repre- sent a balanced approach to both the national emergency needs and the long-term obj co- Natural Resources [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Atomic energy (Atomic Energy Commission) Defense production activities : Department of the Interior: Present programs Proposed legislation Land and water resources : Corps of Engineers : Flood control and multiple-purpose proj- ects St. Lawrence project (proposed legislation). Department of the Interior : Bureau of Reclamation : Present programs Hells Canyon power project (proposed legislation) Power transmission (Bonneville, South- eastern, and Southwestern Power Admin- istrations) Indian land resources Bureau of Land Management and other .... Tennessee Valley Authority (net) International Boundary and Water Commis- sion, United States and Mexico Federal Power Commission Forest resources : Forest Service and other Agriculture Payments to counties from land grant funds Mineral resources : Department of the Interior : Bureau of Mines and other Payments to States, Mineral Leasing Act. . . Department of Defense : Naval petroleum reserves Fish and wildlife resources (Fish and Wildlife Service and other) Recreational use of resources (National Park Service) General resource surveys (Geological Survey) 1951 actual Total. 1 Less than one-half million dollars. 86 Expenditures 1952 estimated $897 $1, 725 491 295 44 27 7 72 6 4 79 2 19 17 15 26 30 18 2,051 503 276 62 36 12 190 12 4 96 7 22 15 19 37 38 22 3,082 Recommended new obliga- 1953 tional authority estimated for 1953 $1, 775 $1, 255 0) 562 15 257 6 71 48 13 200 15 5 97 7 22 18 21 39 33 28 3,237 547 20 228 83 57 12 200 16 5 21 18 22 31 32 29 2,694 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] tives. They continue our policy of post- poning many desirable long-range projects in order to place greater emphasis on meet- ing current defense requirements. But they provide for those long-range developments which cannot be postponed without serious harm to our economy. Expenditures for the development of nat- ural resources in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 3.2 billion dollars, compared to 3.1 billion dollars in the current fiscal year. More than half of the 1952 and 1953 ex- penditures, and most of the billion-dollar increase in expenditures since 195 1, will be for our expanding atomic energy program. Expenditures for flood control and irriga- tion and for multiple-purpose river basin development, including hydroelectric energy, account for most of the remainder of the total. Atomic energy. — Although the past year has brought considerable progress in the industrial and other peacetime applications of atomic energy — including more wide- spread participation by private industry — the principal emphasis of this program con- tinues of necessity to be placed on the na- tional security. The major program ini- tiated in October 1950 for expanding the productive capacity of our atomic energy plants is well under way, and major pro- duction facilities now under construction will begin to contribute to output in the fiscal year 1953. This program is under constant study in order to make the adjust- ments necessary to continue our leadership in this field. Funds recommended for the Atomic Energy Commission include increased amounts for the procurement of uranium ores and concentrates, the production of fis- sionable materials and atomic weapons, and the development of improved and more ef- fective weapons. The several tests of atomic weapons and devices carried out dur- ing the past 12 months demonstrate the effectiveness of recent research. Increases are also provided for an expanded effort to develop improved nuclear reactors for the production of fissionable material as well as reactors for the propulsion of submarines and aircraft. The development of propul- sion reactors complements other studies under way in contributing to the ultimate goal of economical production of electricity for civilian use. The Commission will also continue its vigorous programs in basic and! applied research in the physical sciences and in biology and medicine. Land and water resources. — Pre-Korea plans for development of our land and water resources have been modified to reflect the urgent needs of the defense emergency. The few new starts recommended since the attack on Korea have been restricted to ur- gently needed projects, principally those pro- viding power benefits. Many river basin development projects for flood control, navigation, or irrigation provide hydroelectric power which is not only a valuable asset to the civilian economy but is of utmost importance to defense pro- duction. This Budget contains funds to make it possible for power features of these multiple-purpose projects to go forward ac- cording to schedule. Funds provided for ether projects already under construction will bring them to completion at an orderly and economical construction rate, or to a point where they can be stopped without los- ing benefits already gained or impairing the value of investments already made. Many desirable projects have been re- , tarded or suspended since the beginning of the Korean emergency. For example,, the Budget which I transmitted to you two^ years ago included funds for 122 general flood-control projects. After the attack on Korea, the number was reduced to 102* The 1953 Budget recommends funds for 64 general flood-control projects, 60 of which were initiated in previous years. Some of the projects for which funds were recom- mended two years ago have been completed,, but many of them have been suspended. Seventeen of the 64 projects in this Budget will be completed or virtually completed with the funds recommended for 1953. 87 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Thus the scope of this program has been reduced substantially since the Korean emergency. This is also true of the rec- lamation program. As a result of these actions, combined expenditures for flood control, irrigation, and multiple-purpose projects now under construction by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Rec- lamation will be held to about the fiscal year 1952 level, despite the fact that expend- itures on some large projects with power features will increase substantially. Only a limited number of new starts for these programs are recommended in this Budget. They are restricted to urgently needed power projects in critical shortage areas, flood-control projects in the Kansas- Missouri area, and emergency rehabilitation work which cannot be deferred. The Kansas-Missouri area during the past summer suffered one of the worst flood dis- asters in the history of our country. This Budget includes 21 million dollars for start- ing construction on Tuttle Creek and Glen Elder Dams, both in Kansas, and for flood protection work at Topeka, Kansas, and Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Furthermore, by Executive order I have established a Mis- souri Basin Survey Commission to review the many different kinds of problems that exist in the large area of the basin and to advise the country as to the best way to proceed to achieve an orderly, businesslike development of the resources of the basin resulting in the greatest benefits for all the people of the basin and the Nation. The accelerating pace of defense produc- tion, coupled with the anticipated expansion in civilian needs, is placing a growing de- mand on our power-producing facilities. Of the 735 million dollars of expenditures for projects under way by the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation in 1953, about 390 million dollars — or over 50 percent — will be spent on multiple- purpose projects providing power benefits. In order to further expand our power po- tential, four new river development projects are recommended for initiation in fiscal year 1953. These are the St. Lawrence project, Hells Canyon power project and Ice Harbor Lock and Dam on the Snake River, and the Hartwell Reservoir in South Carolina. If there has ever been a water resource project with great strategic benefits, it is the St. Lawrence development. The large hydroelectric power potential alone offers ample justification for undertaking this project without further delay. But the emerging iron ore problem makes it a stra- tegic necessity. Beyond one end of the waterway are the large steel-producing cen- ters and the declining high-grade iron ore deposits of the United States. Beyond the other end are the large new discoveries of high-grade ore in Canada. In view of the importance of this project, the Government of Canada has recently announced that it is prepared to proceed independently with its construction, rather than wait indefinitely for United States participation. I have al- ready indicated my intention to support such action by Canada, if that is the only way to obtain immediate construction of this project. However, if Canada built the waterway, she would, of course, control its operation. I feel strongly that our Nation's interest in the development of this resource on the basis which I have recommended is so vital that we should join as a full partner in its construction and operation. The Ice Harbor and Hartwell projects are authorized, but the St. Lawrence devel- opment and Hells Canyon power project require authorization by the Congress. I again urge the Congress to authorize these two projects without delay. The 37 million dollars recommended for the four projects would permit the starting of construction on these important developments. I also recommend 63 million dollars to begin installation of 11 additional steam- electric and hydroelectric generation units in the power system of the Tennessee Val- ley Authority. The additions are needed not only to meet the steady growth in the power needs of the area but also for the 88 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] large increase in the requirements for the atomic energy facilities in this area. These new projects and units will provide ultimate capacity of 3.5 million kilowatts. This capacity, together with the 8.3 million kilowatts presently installed in Federal proj- ects and the 10.3 million kilowatts to be in- stalled ultimately in projects under way, will make a substantial addition to our power supply. Funds recommended for the fiscal year 1953 f°r tne Bonneville, Southwestern, and Southeastern Power Administrations, Bu- reau of Reclamation, and Tennessee Valley Authority will provide properly scheduled facilities to transmit available power to load centers. I am also including funds in this Budget to continue planning the urgently needed re- development of Niagara power facilities made possible by the treaty with Canada. In addition, I recommend the enactment of legislation to permit construction of facilities that would enable us to realize the full power potential of the Niagara site. In order to make it possible to meet de- fense power requirements in the Pacific Northwest, I also recommend legislation to authorize the construction, operation and maintenance of fuel-fired electric-generating plants. Such plants would provide an early increase in capacity and would make more effective existing hydroelectric facilities. Because of the large increases in costs that have been experienced on some projects I have asked the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to prepare for the consideration of the Congress, appropriation language which would require further congressional approval before work could go forward where the total cost of the authorized im- provement has increased by more than 10 percent above the last estimate approved by the Congress, after allowance for changes in construction cost levels. This will permit a reappraisal to be made to determine whether we would be justified in proceed- ing with the work. The Water Resources Policy Commission has submitted to me a comprehensive report and recommendations on Federal responsi- bility for and participation in the develop- ment, utilization, and conservation of our water resources and related land-use activi- ties. The recommendations of the Com- mission have been under intensive study dur- ing the past year by representatives of the Executive Office and interested agencies. The Commission's report and this study in- dicate the need for improved means for com- prehensive planning and coordination in the development of these resources, including wider State and local participation, as well as for broadening the scope of some pro- grams. Legislative recommendations for better development of the Nation's water resources and related land-use activities are now being prepared. Mineral resources. — To meet our immedi- ate defense objectives, programs in the field of mineral resources are aimed at assuring this Nation and the free world adequate supplies of metals, minerals, and fuels at reasonable prices. To this end, the Defense Materials Procurement Agency has been established with central responsibility for procurement and development operations for the current mobilization effort. The Bureau of Mines and the Geological Survey appraise known sources and make surveys for new sources of critically needed materials — such as uranium, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, copper, and lead — and conduct research aimed at improving mining prac- tices and methods of extracting minerals, recovery of secondary metals, and increased efficiency in the use of substitutes. Research and operation of pilot and demonstration plants for production of synthetic liquid fuels from oil shale and coal will be con- tinued. National forests and public lands. — Pro- grams of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management provide for the man- agement, development, and increasing use of the valuable timber, range, and mineral resources of our national forests and public lands. 89 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents The small increases over fiscal year 1952 will permit some expansion in timber sales activities, thus adding to the supply of forest products which are needed for defense activities. Developmental programs for the In- dians.— Most of our Indian citizens live on and make their living from the 56 million acres of land held in trust for them by the United States. Much of this land is in need of further development work, but even after development the lands will support, at an adequate American standard of living, only about half of the Indian population. The goal of Federal Indian policy is to equip the Indians to take their place as in- dependent, self-supporting citizens of this Nation. To do this job properly will re- quire a substantial investment of Federal funds and time enough to complete the task on an orderly basis. For the fiscal year 1953 I am recommending new obligational authority of 57 million dollars for Indian land resources. This will provide for ac- celeration of soil-conservation work and fur- ther development of urgently needed water supplies and timber and range resources, as well as additional roads and other construc- tion needed to carry out the various devel- opmental programs for the Indians. To insure effective use of their lands, the Indians are in need of credit facilities. I recommend legislation to augment the loan fund previously authorized in an amount sufficient to meet demands for credit over the next 5 or 10 years. AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES To meet increased military and civilian requirements, farm production was ex- panded in the 1951 crop year and should continue to increase in 1952. Despite floods and droughts, farmers achieved a total production in 1951 as high as that in any previous year. In 1952, with present production goals, farmers will be aiming at a new record, 6 percent above 1 95 1 and 50 percent above the 1935-39 aver- age. These goals represent the maximum Agriculture and Agricultural Resources [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Stabilization of farm prices and farm income : Price support, supply, and purchase programs . . . Removal of surplus agricultural commodities . . . International Wheat Agreement Sugar Act Federal crop insurance Agricultural production programs Financing farm ownership and operation : Farm Credit Administration and agencies Farmers' Home Administration Disaster loans Financing rural electrification and rural telephones . . Agricultural land and water resources : Agricultural conservation program (Production and Marketing Administration) Soil Conservation Service, flood control, and other Research and other agricultural services : Present programs Extension of Defense Production Act (proposed legislation) Total Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) 1951 1952 1953 actual estimated estimated -$781 46 180 69 4 21 185 156 -1 $70 55 183 70 6 10 51 165 29 $240 50 188 70 4 15 35 162 11 Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 $120 181 182 70 9 15 23 162 276 250 223 83 284 302 261 257 62 68 68 69 149 149 147 152 4 4 650 1,408 1,478 1,327 90 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] practicable increase in the production of corn and other feed grains which are neces- sary for meeting the increasing demand for meat, poultry, and dairy products. Cotton production will be continued at a high level, and the goal for wheat is materially above the 195 1 production when 16 million acres of winter wheat were ruined by unfavorable weather. Recommendations for agricultural pro- grams in this Budget recognize the desira- bility of expanding farm production and maintaining the capacity of the Nation's farms to produce foods and fibers in abun- dance. Total expenditures for agriculture and agricultural resources are estimated at 1.5 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1953. This compares with 2.8 billion dollars in 1950, 650 million dollars in 195 1, and an estimated 1.4 billion dollars in 1952. Most of the fluctuation in expenditures is in the agri- cultural price support program. Stabilization of farm prices and farm in- come. — Programs designed largely to aid in supporting farm prices and farm income include the agricultural price support pro- gram, the permanent appropriation for removal of surplus agricultural commodities, the International Wheat Agreement, and payments to farmers under the Sugar Act. These programs are all required under basic legislation. Expenditures depend more on crop conditions and world economic con- ditions than on current Budget authoriza- tions. The price support program is being used to encourage farm production by keeping support prices on cotton, corn, wheat, soy- beans, milk, wool, and certain other com- modities at maximum levels of 90 percent of parity. This level of support should help to give farmers the economic incentive nec- essary to maintain high production. In the crop year 1952, with present production goals, we should be able to reverse the down- ward trend in carry-over stocks of cotton, wheat, and corn and begin to build up reserves to meet possible crop shortages in future years. If production is not reduced by poor growing conditions, some of the increased carry-over — principally cotton and wheat — will come into Commodity Credit Corporation inventories, and its acquisition will result in a net Budget expenditure in the fiscal year 1953. The Corporation had large net receipts in 1951, and expenditures are estimated to be lower in 1952 than in 1953 because of the liquidation of inven- tories acquired in 1949 and 1950. The permanent appropriation for removal of surplus agricultural commodities was es- tablished in 1935 at a time when the Nation was in the midst of a depression and farm- ers were faced with burdensome surpluses. Under present economic conditions only a fraction of the funds available will be needed. In the fiscal year 1953 the funds available will include the carry-over of 176 million dollars from prior years plus 181 million dollars of new authorization. Expenditures under this program, however, are estimated to be 50 million dollars in 1953. Expenditures under the International Wheat Agreement have risen to a higher level than was anticipated at the time the agreement was negotiated. Although we expected a downward trend in world wheat prices after World War II the Korean crisis and the increased demand for wheat have caused increased prices since 1950. The Agreement, which expires luly 31, 1953, guarantees the export each year of a certain quantity of wheat at the maximum price of $1.80 per bushel. The loss arising from the difference between this export price and the higher domestic price of wheat is met initially from Commodity Credit Corporation funds, with reimbursement later from appropriated funds. The cost of the wheat agreement has risen from 76 million dollars in the fiscal year 1950 to 180 million dollars in 1951 and is estimated to increase somewhat in 1952 and 1953. Financing farm ownership and opera- tion.— All credit agencies of the Department of Agriculture are maintaining a careful review of loan policies to emphasize credit 91 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents needed for defense requirements and to keep them consistent with the voluntary credit restraints followed by private lenders. Expenditures of the Farm Credit Admin- istration are estimated to decline from 185 million dollars in the fiscal year 1951 to 51 million dollars in the current fiscal year and 35 million dollars in 1953. The loan programs of the Farmers' Home Administration aid low-income farm fami- lies unable to obtain credit from other sources to expand production and to achieve efficient farming units. These, as well as many other programs of the Department of Agriculture, encourage the economic development of family-size farms and the better use of under- employed farm resources. The unusually large net expenditure for disaster loans in 1952 represents mainly loans made in the Kansas-Missouri flood area. Net expenditures for these loans are ex- pected to decline in 1953. Financing rural electrification and rural telephones. — The continuing shortage of critical materials has made it necessary to reduce allocations of copper and aluminum for rural electrification. The decline in Rural Electrification Administration ex- penditures in the fiscal years 1952 and 1953 reflects the shortage of materials. In view of the estimated carry-over into the fiscal year 1953 of 118 million dollars of unused loan authorizations, I recommend that the new loan authorization for the fiscal year 1953 be reduced to 75 million dollars. This will permit continuance of new approved electrification and telephone loans at the 1952 level of 190 million dollars, materially less than the 260 million dollars of loans approved in 195 1. In this way we can avoid building up excessive commitments for loan expenditures one, two, or three years in the future when we cannot now forecast the availability of scarce materials. Following the pattern established by the Congress, I also recommend a contingency authorization of 50 million dollars for elec- trification loans to be used if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies that such funds are necessary to provide a fair distribution among the States under the allocation for- mula, but still keeping within the over-all level of loans approved in the fiscal year 1952. Conservation. — An increase in funds for the Soil Conservation Service in the fiscal year 1953 is required largely because of the increasing number of new soil-conservation districts established by farmers and the in- creased responsibilities for supervising per- manent practices financed from the conser- vation payments program. With the growing demands on our soil resources, we cannot afford to relax our efforts in this di- rection. I also recommend that the advance authorization for the agricultural conserva- tion payment program in the crop year 1953 be continued at 256.5 million dollars, the level authorized by the Congress for the 1952 crop year. Research and other agricultural serv- ices.— The ability of the Nation's farmers to meet the increasing demands for food and fiber products rests on the continued improvement of the technology of agricul- ture. My recommendations for research and other agricultural services, which hold these programs close to the fiscal year 1952 level, represent a desirable balance between the immediate needs of the security effort and the need to strengthen our economy for the years ahead. In order to help meet the manpower needs of defense production and essential civilian activities without jeopardizing existing labor standards, which are essential to sus- tained high productivity, we are shifting the emphasis of Federal labor programs. More effort is going into assisting em- ployers in recruiting and training. Media- tors are giving special attention to settling disputes in defense industries. Safety train- ing programs are concentrating on the pre- vention of accidents in hazardous defense work. Statistics on prices, wages, and em- ployment are being collected more promptly and in more detail so that Government and 92 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] industry can have a better basis for decisions on contract placement and plant location, and on price and wage stabilization pro- grams. In the fiscal year 1953 expenditures for all activities included under labor will amount to 246 million dollars, 6 million dollars more than in the current year. The increases are in the placement and defense production activities of the Department of Labor and in operations of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service and the National Labor Relations Board. Three-fourths of the total expenditures for labor programs will be direct grants to the States for the admin- istration of placement services and unem- ployment compensation. Placement and unemployment compensa- tion administration. — Employment service and unemployment insurance administra- tion— which is almost all under State con- trol but is entirely financed by the Federal Government — will reflect the continuing im- pact of defense production. More place- ments and fewer claims for unemployment benefits are expected on a national basis as total employment rises. Generally, employ- ment conditions are very good. However, in some communities, such as Detroit, se- rious local increases in unemployment have developed. Efforts are being made to im- prove these local situations through the placement of defense work in these areas. The employment services offer the best means for the orderly recruiting of workers for defense plants. As defense production continues to expand, increasing manpower stringencies will place an even greater re- sponsibility on the employment services. Special efforts are being made to reduce unnecessary migration and avoidable strains on housing and community facilities by recruiting all local workers, including women, older workers, members of minor- ity groups, and the handicapped, before arranging for out-of-State recruitment. The public employment offices have the assist- ance of labor-management committees in helping communities with labor shortages to solve their manpower problems. These State activities will be administered by an estimated 40,800 employees — 1,200 fewer than this year. However, expenditures will increase because of salary increases for State employees. Shifts to defense employment have con- tributed to a serious farm-labor shortage. To help meet this shortage, a new program Labor [Fiscal years. In millions] Expenditures 1951 1952 Program or agency actual estimated Placement and unemployment compensation ad- ministration : Department of Labor $183 $189 Railroad Retirement Board 6 10 Defense production activities: Department of Labor : Present programs 1 2 Proposed legislation Labor standards and training : Department of Labor 13 14 Mine safety (Department of the Interior) 4 4 Labor relations 12 13 Labor information, statistics, and general admin- istration 9 8 Total 228 240 1 Less than one -half million dollars. 55-672— 66 10 1953 stimated Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 $192 11 $204 11 0) 3 3 14 14 4 4 14 15 8 8 246 259 93 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents to recruit farm laborers from Mexico for work in the United States was started last fall under authority of legislation passed by the Congress and in accordance with a tem- porary agreement with the Mexican Govern- ment, which expires February n. The United States has been operating five recruit- ing stations in the interior of Mexico and five reception centers in this country. Under this program, about 150,000 workers have been brought into this country for work on farms when need has been demon- strated. Their employment has been under contracts which protect their rights and assure that American labor standards will not be undermined. The United States and Mexico have agreed that both countries must take appropriate actions to prevent the trafficking in and em- ployment of aliens who cross the border from Mexico illegally if we are to preserve the labor standards of American workers and of legal Mexican entrants. On our part, this requires the tightening of our immigra- tion law with respect to illegal entrants and increased appropriations to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for more inspec- tors. I strongly urge prompt and favorable consideration of legislation for this purpose. A supplemental appropriation for operation of the recruiting and reception centers will be necessary if the agreement is renegotiated. Defense production activities. — While we shall continue to rely on voluntary methods rather than Government controls in the field of manpower, the Federal Government must provide the assistance which is essential to help employers and communities in solving their labor-supply problems. Defense Pro- duction Act funds finance the Labor Depart- ment staff which directs the manpower work in the several Bureaus of the Department, and also pay for four special programs — helping employers plan training for new workers, assisting State safety inspectors to conduct accident-prevention campaigns in hazardous defense industries, recruiting workers from other States for jobs in areas with labor shortages, and providing employ- ment information on additional labor mar- ket areas to enable Government agencies to consider labor-supply factors as they make procurement and materials allocation decisions. Labor standards. — Sound labor standards must be maintained not only because of the human rights involved but also because they contribute directly to the high productivity essential in a defense emergency. For this reason, the Secretary of Labor has urged that such standards as those on hours of work and employment of women and young people be held except where they need to be temporarily relaxed to meet urgent produc- tion problems. The recent coal mine explosion in West Frankfort, Illinois, is a tragic demonstration of the need for new legislation to give Fed- eral safety inspectors power to enforce their recommendations. Under existing law, the Bureau of Mines has only the power of persuasion. With the establishment of the Committee on Government Contract Compliance, the Executive Branch has acted, within the limits of its present powers, to see that discrimina- tion because of race, sex, or color does not prevent workers from getting jobs which use their highest skills. Further progress toward this objective will require action by the Congress. I therefore renew my recom- mendation for legislation to establish a Fair Employment Practice Commission. Some of the most serious labor standards problems arise from movement of workers from place to place to meet the manpower needs of agriculture. The Commission on Migratory Labor which I appointed some time ago has recently recommended a series of actions by Federal, State, and local govern- ments to overcome economic exploitation, poor housing and education, and other in- justices encountered by migrants and their families. I intend to take administrative action to carry out many of the recommendations which concern the Federal Government. For example, the Department of Labor will 94 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] increase its efforts to enforce the anti-child- cities. The improved index will be corn- labor provisions of the Fair Labor Standards piled on a trial basis for a number of months Act. From time to time necessary legislation and will be first published for January 1953. will be requested to carry out other recom- Unemployment trust fund, — Benefits for mendations. One of the first laws needed is unemployment compensation are financed to regulate private employment agencies by special payroll taxes on employers which operating across State lines. The Commis- are deposited in the unemployment trust sion on Migratory Labor found that un- fund. Neither the receipts nor the expendi- scrupulous agencies and labor contractors tures are included in the Budget totals. In disrupt the labor supply and exploit workers the fiscal years 1952 and 1953, the tax re- by charging excessive fees, referring workers ceipts are expected to be lower than in 1951, to nonexistent jobs, and misrepresenting the because firms which have had low unem- nature of the work. ployment will pay lower taxes. Despite in- Labor information and statistics. — The creases in unemployment in some areas, total Consumers Price Index, which is an im- unemployment, and expenditures for bene- portant factor in collective bargaining con- fits, are expected to be somewhat lower in tracts for several million workers and in 1952 and 1953 than last year, wage stabilization for all workers, has been The local unemployment we are now ex- largely based on data concerning spending periencing illustrates the continuing need habits of 1934-36. Tremendous changes in for a strong system of unemployment insur- the structure of the economy have taken ance. I hope the Congress will give con- place since then. Therefore, the Bureau of sideration to a number of basic improve- Labor Statistics is preparing an up-to-date ments in the Federal-State system along the index, based on a study of the spending lines recommended in my message to the habits in 1950 of people in large and small Congress of April 6, 1950. Unemployment Trust Fund [Fiscal years. In millions] Item 1951 1952 1953 Receipts: actual estimated estimated Deposits by States and railroad unemployment taxes $1, 378 $1, 319 $1, 351 Interest 164 182 208 Payments: State and railroad withdrawals for benefits — 898 — 856 —707 Net accumulation 644 645 852 Balance in fund at close of year 8, 068 8, 713 9, 565 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT In the years immediately following World War II, we were beginning to make good progress on a comprehensive housing and community development program. Fed- eral insurance and guarantees of private mortgage loans, together with Federal mort- gage purchases, were making it possible for millions of families to purchase better homes on reasonable terms. With these and other aids, the construction of homes reached an all-time peak of 1.4 million new units in 1950. To assist low-income families to ob- tain adequate housing, the Congress had authorized the construction of 135,000 low- rent public housing units a year for a six- year period. A broad program had been started to assist communities in eliminating slums with the aid of Federal loans and grants. Other activities were also well under way to improve the quality or reduce the cost of housing and to assist groups with special housing problems. Since the attack on Korea, we have moved rapidly to adapt these programs to meet the immediate needs of expanded military and 95 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents defense installations and to establish an ade- quate civil defense program. Total hous- ing construction is being reduced to free materials and manpower for more essential uses and to help stabilize prices and wages in the construction industry. Under legis- lation enacted during the past year, the Fed- eral Government is helping State and local governments to provide housing and com- munity facilities in defense areas and is assisting them in civil defense preparations. Almost a third of the new homes built in the fiscal year 1953 w^ be m areas serving military and defense installations. They will be rented or sold at prices which mili- tary personnel and defense workers can afford to pay. Necessary community fa- cilities also will be built in these areas. Federal aid must be given where needed, but it will be held to a minimum. These steps are vital in helping to assure an adequate, stable supply of manpower for new or ex- panding defense plants as well as adequate civilian personnel for military installations. Despite the importance of providing bet- ter housing for many of our people, housing starts in the fiscal year 1953 should be held to 850,000 or even less — depending upon the availability of materials — because of the re- quirements of the defense program. This Housing and'Community Development [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Defense housing and community facilities : Housing and Home Finance Agency: Present programs Proposed legislation Aids to private housing: Housing and Home Finance Agency: Federal National Mortgage Association . . . Federal Housing Administration Home Owners' Loan Corporation Other Direct housing loans (Veterans Administra- tion) Farm housing (Department of Agriculture). Reconstruction Finance Corporation Public housing programs (Housing and Home Finance Agency and other) , Provision of community facilities General housing aids: Housing and Home Finance Agency: Loans to educational institutions Alaska housing and other Urban development and redevelopment (Housing and Home Finance Agency) Civil defense Disaster insurance, loans, and relief: Reconstruction Finance Corporation Funds appropriated to President: Disaster relief Flood insurance program (proposed legisla- tion) Total 1 Less than one-half million dollars. Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) 1951 1952 1953 actual estimated estimated Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 0) $21 $61 213 $325 $496 CO 543 16 -5 65 -7 -15 — 80 -3 -23 58 26 -19 88 24 -16 -5 21 -13 21 124 6 63 30 6 11 -94 41 32 6 48 21 7 6 2 0) 9 44 25 339 350 600 0) 602 30 17 881 13 678 50 1,421 96 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] amount of construction, which must first supply housing in defense areas will provide for no more than the maintenance of present housing standards in other areas. All major Federal programs for housing and commu- nity development outside critical defense housing areas will be held substantially below the levels authorized by basic legislation. In the fiscal year 1953, net expenditures for housing and community development are estimated at 678 million dollars, com- pared to the 881 million dollars estimated for 1952. Expenditures for civil defense and for defense housing and community facilities will rise sharply, but net purchases of mortgages are expected to be almost half a billion dollars lower than in the current year, and substantial net receipts, instead of net expenditures, are expected in public housing programs. Defense housing and community facili- ties.— Since enactment of new legislative authority last September, the Director of Defense Mobilization has certified about 140 areas as meeting the conditions prescribed in the statute for critical defense housing areas. Additional communities will be designated as the need is demonstrated. In the certified areas, the Federal Government will make special efforts to assure that ade- quate housing and community facilities are constructed to meet defense requirements. According to present estimates, roughly 400,000 new housing units should be built or placed under construction to meet needs in critical defense areas during the next 18 months. We are continuing to rely primarily on the initiative of private builders and local communities to provide the needed housing and facilities in these areas. A new and more liberal program of mortgage insurance, as well as special support from the Federal mortgage purchase program, is available to help builders obtain the necessary financing. In those areas where private builders are unable to provide enough housing of the type needed for defense workers and mili- tary personnel and at prices and rents they can afford to pay, the Federal Government will construct such housing directly. Federal loans and grants are also available to assist local communities in critical defense housing areas in providing facilities and services essential to the construction of hous- ing. Federal assistance will be available only to the extent that the financial resources of such communities are inadequate to finance the facilities required. The funds which the Congress has thus far made available for these programs pro- vide only a small beginning on the work which must be done. Available funds for the direct construction of housing are so limited in the face of the pressing need that nearly the entire amount must be used for temporary housing near military installa- tions. Less than 6,000 units can be supplied with present appropriations. These funds will take care of only a small part of the need at military installations and will permit very little direct construction of housing for workers at defense plants. Additional funds also will be needed for providing commu- nity facilities and services. Accordingly, I am recommending supple- mental appropriations for the current fiscal year to make available the additional funds now authorized for defense housing and community facilities. The growing need for defense housing also makes it essential that; the present statutory authorization be in- creased so that the Congress can provide additional funds as quickly as defense re- quirements are demonstrated. On the basis of specific needs thus far identified, addi- tional appropriations in 1953 estimated at 325 million dollars will be required. Of this amount, 25 million dollars is needed for community facilities. Aids to private housing. — Soon after the attack on Korea, the downpayment require- ments on federally insured or guaranteed mortgages and on other mortgages were in- creased and the repayment periods shortened as a method of limiting construction without resort to direct controls. These changes 91 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents helped to slow down the rate of new con- struction and credit expansion, but the action of the Congress last fall in removing most of the authority for such controls has re- versed the trend. During the coming months, it will be necessary to reduce the level of housing con- struction further to make it consistent with the needs of economic stabilization and the limited availability of scarce materials. As one of the most essential methods of achiev- ing this objective, I urge the Congress to restore previous authority over down pay- ments and other credit terms. In recent months the Federal National Mortgage Association has purchased a large volume of mortgages guaranteed by the Veterans Administration in order to provide the support authorized by law for veterans' housing. The activities of the Association, however, are now increasingly directed to- ward providing adequate financing for con- struction in critical defense housing areas. By the fiscal year 1953, over one-half of the mortgages purchased will be those financing either military or other defense housing. The 1953 estimates assume that, with the continued large volume of savings, the sup- ply of private mortgage funds will be suffi- cient to reduce the need for Federal support of both defense and nondefense housing. The mortgage insurance programs of the Federal Housing Administration also have been redirected to support the defense ef- fort. Liberal mortgage insurance terms have been made available to builders con- structing homes in defense housing areas. On the other hand, a sharp reduction is in process in the number of mortgages insured in other areas consistent with the reduced construction planned for 1953. In total, an estimated 360,000 new hous- ing units will be constructed with the aid of financing insured by the Federal Housing Administration. In addition, nearly 150,000 existing homes will be purchased with mort- gages insured by the agency. Since the pre- mium receipts for such insurance usually equal or exceed the expenses and losses, this program normally involves little or no Budget expenditures. For the next fiscal year, it will be necessary to authorize an increase of 1 billion dollars in the total au- thority to insure mortgages under these var- ious programs, principally for insurance of defense housing mortgages. In addition to guarantees of private hous- ing loans to veterans, the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs has limited authority to make direct housing loans to veterans in areas where adequate private financing is not available. This program was extended by the Congress until June 30, 1953, on a revolving-fund basis. Almost all of the 150 million dollars in basic authority has now been spent or committed. The estimates for 1953 assume that the sale of loans al- ready made will provide adequate funds to meet the future need for new loans. Public housing programs, — By the end of this fiscal year an estimated 140,000 low- rent public housing units will have been started under the Housing Act of 1949. Despite this progress, the need for the low- rent public housing program to help pro- vide decent homes for low-income families continues to be great. As part of the re- strictive policy followed on nondefense hous- ing, I again recommend this year — as I recommended last year — that 75,000 new units be started in the next fiscal year, com- pared to the average of 135,000 units a year authorized in the basic statute. While local authorities construct and op- erate public housing projects, the Federal Government assists them by extending di- rect loans and by contracting to make pay- ments, over a period of years, high enough to assure adequate security for long-term private financing. This year local housing authorities will repay a substantial amount of Federal loans with funds raised by the sale of their own obligations to private in- vestors. On the basis of the two offerings to date, net receipts are estimated from this program in the fiscal year 1953. Annual payments of contributions to help cover the difference between cost of operation and 98 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] rental income of the projects will, however, increase substantially next year as many of the new units now under way are com- pleted and occupied. General housing aids. — Loans to help educational institutions ease their housing shortages have been confined exclusively to institutions having shortages resulting di- rectly from defense activities such as Reserve officers' training programs. Loan commit- ments in the current fiscal year have been limited to 40 million dollars, and an addi- tional 20 million dollars of the 300 million dollars authorized in the basic statute will be made available in 1953. The Alaska Housing Act of 1949 gives special assistance for housing in the Terri- tory. The increased military preparations since 1950 have emphasized the need for housing for the supporting civilian popula- tion. At my request, the Federal agencies responsible for housing and related public works in Alaska are taking steps to expedite construction of both the needed housing and the supporting community facilities. I am recommending a supplemental appropria- tion to the revolving fund for Alaskan hous- ing, as well as appropriations for necessary public works. Further changes in basic authority will be requested if studies now being made reveal the need for further assistance to this strategic area. Urban development and redevelop- ment.— The long-range slum clearance and urban redevelopment program, designed to assist cities in the elimination and redevelop- ment of their blighted areas, is now well under way. Over 200 cities have indicated their intention to proceed with redevelop- ment programs and have received assurance that Federal assistance will be available for their programs. Of these cities, more than 150 have submitted plans which have been approved for Federal assistance. To prevent conflict with defense require- ments, present policies provide that commu- nities may acquire sites for redevelopment, but may not demolish existing structures or construct new structures unless these steps are specifically determined to be con- sistent with defense needs. These limita- tions will hold the net expansion in the coming year to the minimum rate necessary to make the program effective. For the fiscal year 1953, for example, new loan commit- ments are not expected to exceed 100 million dollars — even though the basic statute au- thorizes 250 million dollars in borrowing authority for 1953 — with expenditures esti- mated at 25 million dollars. The basic statute also authorizes contracts for capital grants of 100 million dollars a year, but no payments on such grants are now expected in the fiscal year 1953. Civil defense. — A strong civil defense pro- gram is an indispensable part of our security effort. Neither our geographic position nor our military defenses can assure absolute protection against attack. An enemy can strike our industrial centers and inflict heavy damage in lives and property. This threat to our civilian population and to our produc- tive facilities can be reduced, however, by strengthening the civil defense program now under way. Failure to do so could leave a fatal gap in our security structure. I am therefore recommending a substantially in- creased appropriation. These funds will finance minimum Federal stockpiles of es- sential supplies and will match State and local expenditures to prepare protective shelters in densely populated areas and to assemble necessary local equipment. Although civil defense is primarily a State and local responsibility, the Federal Civil Defense Administration plays a key role in providing information, leadership, coordi- nation, and financial assistance to State and local governments. Federal expenditures for civil defense in the fiscal year 1953 are esti- mated at 339 million dollars, compared to 44 million dollars in 1952 and less than half a million dollars in 1951. This sharp in- crease is necessary to overcome dangerous gaps which now exist in the program, caused by the inadequate financial support given it by the Congress last year. Disaster insurance, loans, and relief. — The 99 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents great floods last summer in Kansas and Missouri made necessary Federal assistance to relieve suffering, repair the damage, and return the stricken area to full economic activity as quickly as possible. The emer- gency assistance included loans by the Re- construction Finance Corporation and the Department of Agriculture, and grants ad- ministered through the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Through the cooperative efforts of the Federal, State, and local govern- ments and the American Red Cross, the homeless were given shelter and the threat of epidemics was avoided. While disasters of this magnitude happen rarely, we should be better prepared for them than we are at present. Individuals and business firms should have an opportunity to purchase financial protection against this hazard. The insurance facilities now avail- able from private companies are extremely limited. Accordingly, I repeat my recom- mendation of last summer for the enactment of legislation to supplement these private facilities by establishing a Federal flood in- surance system. An appropriation of 50 mil- lion dollars is recommended to create a flood insurance fund. As part of our preparation against the greater hazards of modern war, I urge the Congress to consider legislation authorizing Federal programs necessary to restore orderly community life, maintain minimum incomes, and compensate individuals and business firms for property damage arising from enemy attack. In an atomic age, the proba- bility of such an attack is so unpredictable and the expenditures necessary to provide a minimum level of protection are potentially so large that neither private nor public insur- ance is feasible. Nevertheless, orderly ad- vance planning is essential. At the request of the Senate Banking and Currency Com- mittee, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has submitted a draft of legislation providing minimum authority required in advance of such attack, including authority to set up a skeleton organization and to draft specific plans for partial indemnities and other necessary programs. The appropriate agencies of the Government are continuing to review and improve these proposals. EDUCATION AND GENERAL RESEARCH Federal expenditures for education and general research are estimated at 624 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953, compared to an estimated 238 million dollars in 1952 and 115 million dollars in 1951. These sums do not include special-purpose education and research activities included in other Budget categories. The substantial increase in the fiscal year 1953 will strengthen basic education pro- grams and fundamental research. The added funds are needed primarily for new legislation which I am recommending to help all the States improve elementary and secondary education, to help provide schools in those communities which are overbur- dened because of Federal activities, and to give financial assistance to capable young people who otherwise could not attend a college or university. New obligational authority recommended for 1953 is 688 million dollars, but largely because of the length of time required to complete and pay for buildings under the school construction program the expendi- tures will be 64 million dollars less than this amount. Promotion of education — elementary and secondary. — At present, too many of our people are unable to make full use of their capabilities, whether in civilian employ- ment or military service, because their op- portunities for education and training have been limited. Schools are overcrowded, substandard instruction is common, and teachers' salaries continue low in many areas. The most serious aspect of this situation is that it can so easily become very much worse. Our school-age population is now rising rapidly, as a result of the great in- crease in births which began in the war years. The number of children entering the first grade is now nearly 10 percent 100 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Education and General Research [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Promotion of education : Office of Education : General aid for operating expenses, elemen- tary and secondary schools (proposed legislation) Education of children on Federal property and in emergency and critical defense housing areas : Present programs Proposed legislation General assistance to college students (pro- posed legislation) Vocational education Other programs Educational aid to special groups Library and museum services General purpose research : National Science Foundation National Bureau of Standards Seventeenth Decennial Census (Department of Commerce) Other Total 1 Less than one-half million dollars. higher than it was only four years ago. Four years from now it will have risen an- other 24 percent. Meanwhile, of course, these children will be moving up through the grades, year by year, putting new strains successively on our elementary and second- ary school systems. I have urged the Congress for several years to enact legislation providing grants to the States for operation and maintenance of their local schools. These grants would assist the States in improving their systems of elementary and secondary education by raising teachers' salaries, providing more and better textbooks, and in many other ways. The security program has reem- phasized this need. In some States more than one-third of the young men called by the Selective Service System failed the edu- cational tests for entrance into military serv- ice during the fiscal year 195 1. The States with the highest rejection rates are precisely 1951 actual Expenditures 1952 estimated $17 0) 27 7 6 10 10 30 $151 185 35 30 26 26 9 8 8 8 11 12 1 5 11 12 13 3 8 10 Jan. 21 [18] Recommended new obliga- 1953 ^W tional authority estimated for 1953 $300 190 80 30 26 8 5 12 15 9 2 11 115 238 624 68 those low-income States which, despite heavier taxes in relation to income, are un- able to provide a satisfactory education for their young people. Many of the men re- jected for military service because of educa- tional deficiencies are also unable to meet our needs for skilled workers in industry. At a time like this we cannot afford to waste any resources, yet this pool of inade- quately used human resources is being con- tinually enlarged because many young people are denied the opportunity for a proper education. This is a need that we must begin to meet at once. This Budget includes a recommen- dation of 300 million dollars as the prelimi- nary estimate for general aid to education in the fiscal year 1953. Because of higher costs and the greater number of school chil- dren, this amount of aid will not fully ac- complish the purposes which my earlier proposal was designed to achieve. I hope IOI [i8] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents that the Congress will enact legislation con- taining provisions to raise equalization aid to a more adequate level over the next decade. In addition to this new program of gen- eral aid, the Budget includes 45 million dollars in estimated appropriations for op- eration and maintenance aid to certain local school districts where the Federal Govern- ment has a special responsibility to furnish assistance because Federal activities have imposed special burdens. This Budget also includes estimated ap- propriations of 225 million dollars for the construction of school facilities in critical defense housing areas and other places spe- cially affected by Federal activities. Of this amount, 150 million dollars is needed to continue the program already authorized, and the remainder is a preliminary estimate of needs under proposed legislation. We are also moving forward on a detailed three-year Nation-wide survey of our school construction needs generally, as authorized by the Congress in 1950. In cooperation with the Office of Education, the States are making good progress in surveying their shortages of school facilities and their re- sources available to meet these shortages. The information coming in from this survey will help us to determine what the future role of the Federal Government should be in relation to school construction needs. Meanwhile, the States and localities are doing a great deal to meet the situation. During the calendar year 1951 they broke all previous construction records by building more than 40,000 new classrooms costing 1.3 billion dollars. It is gratifying that, despite the shortage of structural steel, we have been able to make enough available for the first half of 1952 to continue and even increase this rate of construction on the basis of modified designs which require less steel. The present programs of Federal aid to critical areas for construction and operation of schools are based on two laws enacted in 1950. Under these laws we provide aid to local school districts for construction and for operation of schools to meet burdens result- ing from peacetime and World War II Fed- eral activities. Expenditures under both laws are estimated at 185 million dollars in 1953. Many localities receiving such aid have suffered additional financial strain be- cause of current mobilization activities. Because of the rigid formulas in these laws, we have been unable to provide adequate aid to these localities and to others, such as the Savannah River and Paducah areas, where new atomic energy installations have re- sulted in a vastly increased need for schools. Late in the last session the Congress passed legislation which would have amended these laws so as to provide more adequate and flexible authority for assisting critical defense housing areas, but the bill included certain objectionable provisions which compelled me to withhold my approval. I hope that the Congress will reenact, at this session, the much-needed amendments in an acceptable form and at the same time make other im- provements in the laws. Expenditures under this proposed legislation are estimated at 35 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953 for both the construction and the operation programs. Children of migratory workers constitute a special group whose present educational opportunities are inadequate. As has been pointed out by the Commission on Migratory Labor, because these children move with their families, they start school later, attend fewer days, make less progress, and drop out earlier than others. As a first step to- ward meeting this problem, we need to work out special teaching materials and methods suited to their education. I have therefore included in this Budget money to enable the Office of Education to make the necessary studies in cooperation with the States and with institutions of higher learning. Promotion of education — colleges and uni- versities.— In the present emergency, our military forces and our defense industries need an increasing number of people who have advanced education and training. Full strength on all fronts is essential for the long pull, and trained manpower is critically im- 102 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] portant to such strength. This need for a substantial and rapid increase in the number of people who go to colleges and universities is a national problem requiring national action. By temporarily postponing the induction of students into the armed forces, we took one step toward assuring that each man receives the training which will enable him to serve national needs most effectively. At present, however, family financial ability tends to be the factor that decides who, among the able, can continue his education and who will be inducted immediately. The results are not only unfair — they are detri- mental to our national interest. Elsewhere in this Budget there are Federal programs for aid to college students, such as the programs of veterans' education and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. These programs are necessary for special purposes. They do not meet the broader needs of the Nation. A general program of scholarship aid and loans for undergraduate students is the logical and practical answer, and this Budget therefore includes 30 million dollars for initiating such a program in the fiscal year 1953. The program I am recommend- ing is designed to provide modest payments to a limited number of students, and to give this aid only in those instances where the students otherwise could not go to college. National Science Foundation. — During the last decade we have seen how basic scientific research can alter the foundations of world power. We have seen that this research yields a stream of new knowledge which fortifies our economic welfare as well as our national strength. We have learned that a strong, steady, and wide-ranging effort in science is as essential to our sustained na- tional security as the production of weapons and the training of military personnel. The National Science Foundation has been established as the Government agency re- sponsible for a continuing analysis of the whole national endeavor in basic research, including the evaluation of the research pro- grams of other Federal agencies. On the basis of studies now under way, the Founda- tion will formulate a broad national policy designed to assure that the scope and the quality of basic research in this country are adequate for national security and techno- logical progress. The Foundation also will stimulate or sponsor basic research in subjects which otherwise might receive inadequate atten- tion. While the research program of the Foundation is not intended to supersede the basic research programs of other agen- cies, the Foundation should ultimately be- come the principal agency through which the Federal Government gives support to basic research that is not directly related to the statutory functions of other Federal agencies. The proposed increase for re- search support by the Foundation has been taken into account in arriving at the recom- mendations for the basic research programs for the Department of Defense and other agencies. In the present fiscal year the National Science Foundation is initiating a modest program of fellowships in the sciences. The 1953 Budget recommendation for the Foun- dation provides for an expansion of this pro- gram to help meet the increasing need for specialized and professional personnel in the present emergency. To make its greatest contribution speedily and effectively, the Foundation needs in the fiscal year 1953 an appropriation of the full 15 million dollars authorized by law. Ex- penditures in 1953 are estimated at 10 mil- lion dollars below the appropriation because many research grants extend over two or three years and because the fellowship pro- gram is only beginning. SOCIAL SECURITY, WELFARE, AND HEALTH Expenditures for social security, welfare, and health are estimated at 2.7 billion dol- lars for the fiscal year 1953, slightly less than in the current year and 282 million dollars higher than in 1951. Most of the increase over 195 1 occurs in proposed legislation for 103 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents public assistance and in transfers to the rail- road retirement trust account of payroll taxes collected from railroad employers and employees. In the past year, our programs for pro- tecting people against want and privation have progressed further toward a contribu- tory social insurance basis. Old-age and survivors insurance, financed through a trust fund, has forged ahead of public assistance as a source of income for nonworking peo- ple over 65 years of age. This marks the realization for the first time of a basic principle of the Social Secu- rity Act — that the major role of protecting people against want in old age should be assigned to social insurance, financed mu- tually by employers and employees through payroll taxes, and providing benefits as a matter of right without a means test. Only 16 months ago there were 2,800,000 aged people on the public assistance rolls, while only 2,000,000 were receiving old-age and survivors insurance, and average public assistance benefits were substantially greater than old-age insurance payments. Today, more than 3,200,000 persons receive old-age insurance, while the number of aged re- ceiving public assistance has dropped by about 100,000 from the peak reached in Sep- tember 1950 and is still declining. More- over, insurance benefit rates have been increased to a level almost equal to average public assistance payments. The 1950 amendments to the Social Security Act — which broadened the coverage and increased the benefits — played a major role in revers- ing the previous trend. Unquestionably, the healthiest form of economic security for all people is opportu- nity for steady employment. The over- whelming majority of people in the Amer- ican labor force — white collar and blue col- lar, skilled and unskilled — are able to work and want to work. To that end, additional efforts should be made by private employers and Government to utilize the skills of the older workers and, where necessary, to re- train them for work commensurate with their capacities. But for those who are un- able to work — older or disabled people or widows with growing children — insurance protection should be available on an ade- quate basis. Social Security, Welfare, and Health [Fiscal yoars. In millions] Program or agency Retirement and dependents insurance: Railroad Retirement Board Other Public assistance : Federal Security Agency: Present program Proposed legislation Aid to special groups : Vocational rehabilitation (Federal Security Agency) School lunch (Department of Agriculture) Indian welfare and other Accident compensation (Department of Labor) Promotion of public health (Federal Security Agency and other) Crime control and correction (Department of Justice and other) Defense community facilities and services (Federal Security Agency) Total 1951 actual $608 7 1,187 Expenditures 1952 estimated $773 7 1,182 17 83 37 27 305 109 22 84 45 37 382 133 15 1953 estimated $723 3 Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 $723- 3 2,380 2,680 1,142 100 24 83 61 37 341 133 15 2,662 1, 142. 100 24 83 63 37 268. 135 2,578. IO4 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 21 [18] Benefits should be increased without delay. Because of the rising wage level, the revenues of the old-age and survivors insurance system are higher than will be needed to pay the present scale of benefits to people who will retire. Under these cir- cumstances, it is possible to increase average primary benefit rates by about 5 dollars a month. This increase can be made without in any way increasing the contribution rates in present laws. This would raise the aver- age benefit of a retired worker to 47 dollars a month. In addition, I hope the Congress will not neglect other desirable improvements in our social insurance laws which will move us closer to our objective of making old-age and survivors insurance a basic protection for all employed groups, with special pen- sion plans supplementing this basic protec- tion. We should extend coverage to mem- bers of the armed forces, public employees, farmers, farm and household workers not regularly employed by a single employer, and other employed groups who are not cov- ered by a publicly sponsored insurance sys- tem. Also, as soon as practicable, the present limitation of 3,600 dollars a year on earnings taxed under the insurance system should be brought up to date, and provision should be made for permanent and total disability protection. Railroad retirement. — Expenditures of the Railroad Retirement Board consist prin- cipally of transfers to the railroad retirement trust account of taxes collected from railroad employers and employees. The amendments enacted last October raised benefits for the 400,000 persons who were then receiving retirement payments under the Railroad Retirement Act. They also provided benefits for the first time for the wife or husband of a retired railroad employee. Expenditures for these benefits are made directly from the trust fund and do not, therefore, affect the Budget total. These amendments were enacted by the Congress as a first step toward improving the railroad retirement system. Much more remains to be done if we are to give rail- road workers and their dependents adequate protection on a sound financial basis. I am glad that the Congress adopted a resolution providing for a comprehensive study of the railroad retirement system, its benefits and financing, and its relationship to the old-age and survivors insurance program. Public assistance, — Federal grants to the States for the existing public-assistance pro- grams are declining. Expenditures in the fiscal year 1953 under present law are esti- mated at 1.1 billion dollars, 40 million dol- lars below the amount now estimated for the current year. The number of recipients of old-age assistance and aid to dependent chil- dren began to decline during the past year, largely because of increased employment and improved old-age and survivors insur- ance. This decline is expected to continue in the fiscal year 1953. For those who are in genuine need, and who have no recourse other than public assistance, upward adjustments in monthly payments are warranted in view of advances in the cost of living. The Federal Govern- ment in assisting the States to bear the costs of public assistance has a responsibility for sharing the expense of the necessary adjust- ments. Many States have had difficulty in raising their benefits to adequate levels. I recommend the enactment of legislation to provide additional help on a matching basis to assist the States to attain higher benefit levels. This Budget includes 100 million dollars as a tentative estimate of the amount needed for this purpose. Aid to special groups. — The Federal Gov- ernment traditionally assumes part of the financial responsibility for two programs operated by the States for special groups. One of them provides low-cost lunches to school children, thus offering some assurance against undernourishment of our children. My Budget recommendation for this activ- ity is based upon continuing Federal par- ticipation at the present level. The other 105 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents program rehabilitates disabled people and returns them to productive employment, thus increasing our labor force and our na- tional production of goods and services. I am recommending a moderate increase for this purpose. The Federal Government also provides health, welfare, and educational services for our 400,000 native Indians. Because the present level of these services is clearly in- adequate, this Budget provides for a 15- million-dollar increase in expenditures in the next fiscal year. In addition to permitting some improvement and expansion of basic health and educational services, this increase will enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to conduct a constructive program to provide the Indians with training and off-reservation relocation opportunities and to help them to make satisfactory adjustments in new loca- tions. Promotion of public health. — The health of the American people is essential for our security and development. Like any other resource, health should be safeguarded and improved. The Federal Government has contributed to this objective in a number of ways, particularly through its extensive re- search programs and its financial aid to the States. But we still have a long way to go. On the basis of available studies indicating the pressing need for such measures, I rec- ommend that legislation be enacted to pro- vide aid for medical education and local public health units. Furthermore, in order to help outline a course of action which will aid in meeting the long-term health require- ments of the Nation, I have established a commission to study various health prob- lems. The Commission will consider, among other things, the availability of medi- cal services and the adequacy of present methods of paying for them. Public health services are provided pri- marily by local health agencies with exten- sive cooperation and assistance from the States and the Federal Government. More than half of the Federal expenditures for promotion of public health are for grants-in- aid to the States and localities by the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau. These grants are for such activities as hos- pital construction, control of venereal disease and tuberculosis, mental health, maternal and child health, general health services, and detection of cancer and heart disease. Most of the remainder goes toward technical assistance to the States in the form of demon- strations, educational programs, and consul- tative services, and for the research programs of the Public Health Service and Chil- dren's Bureau. The estimate of expendi- tures for health programs in the fiscal year 1953 is lower than for the current year primarily because of smaller outlays to liquidate contract authorizations, particu- larly under the Federal-State hospital con- struction program. This reduction reflects our continuing policy of holding new con- struction to a minimum. Defense community facilities and serv- ices.— This item is for Federal assistance to critical defense housing areas in providing facilities and services essential to health and welfare, including sewage disposal and water supply. Unless these basic needs are met, it will not be possible to attract all the workers needed for defense production. These health and welfare activities support the defense housing and community facili- ties program which is discussed in the Hous- ing and Community Development section of this Message. Trust funds. — In addition to the railroad retirement trust account, mentioned above, the Federal Government maintains two other large trust funds for publicly spon- sored retirement and insurance systems — old-age and survivors insurance and civil- service retirement. The money in the trust funds is invested in Government securities, and the interest earnings are added to the principal in each fund. The balances in these three funds will aggregate approxi- mately 25 billion dollars at the end of the current fiscal year. 106 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] Social Security, Welfare, and Health {Trust funds) [Fiscal years. In millions] 1951 1952 1953 Fund and item actual estimated estimated Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund : Receipts : Appropriation from general receipts $3, 119 $3, 850 $4, 030 Interest and other 291 342 407 Payments of benefits and administrative expenses : Present program —1, 568 —2, 059 —2, 337 Proposed legislation — 225 Net accumulation 1, 842 2, 133 1, 875 Balance in fund at close of year 14, 725 16, 858 18, 733 Railroad retirement account : Receipts : Transfers from Budget accounts 608 773 723 Interest 70 79 90 Payments of benefits, salaries, and expenses — 321 — 397 —447 Net accumulation 357 455 366 Balance in fund at close of year 2, 445 2, 900 3, 266 Federal employees' retirement funds: Receipts : Employee contribution 378 415 413 Transfer from Budget accounts and other 305 310 465 Interest 165 189 216 Payments of annuities and refunds, and expenses — 270 —300 — 322 Net accumulation 578 614 772 Balance in fund at close of year 4, 418 5, 032 5, 804 veterans' services and benefits bodied young men coming of military age to serve their turn in the armed services. Expenditures for veterans' services and As our commitments to our growing num- benefits, which have declined 43 percent ber of veterans increase, we should con- from the World War II peak of 7.4 billion stantly inquire into how we can best meet dollars in 1947, are estimated at 4.2 billion their needs and the needs of their depend- dollars in the fiscal year 1953. The decline ents. In considering legislation affecting results from sharp reductions in expendi- veterans, we must take into account the tures for readjustment benefits and insur- prevailing economic and military situation, ance outlays. the relation of veterans' programs to the In view of the large increase in the size of whole range of Government programs, the our armed forces since Korea, and the con- availability of other Government services, tinued increase in expenditures for compen- and the lessons learned from experience, sation and pensions, further large declines The chief responsibility of the Govern- in veterans' oudays are unlikely. Our vet- ment is to give medical care to veterans who eran population is increasing rapidly under have been injured in the service, to assist the policy which requires nearly all able- them to assume their place in society as pro- 107 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Veterans' Services and Benefits [Fiscal years. In millions] Program or agency Readjustment benefits: Education and training: Present programs Proposed legislation Loan guarantees Unemployment and self-employment allow- ances Other Compensation and pensions : Compensation and pension payments: Present programs Proposed legislation Subsistence to disabled veterans Insurance and servicemen's indemnities Hospitals and medical care : Current expenses Hospital construction Other services and administration (Veterans Ad- ministration and other) Total ductive and self-reliant citizens, and to give necessary aid to the families of veterans deceased or injured from service causes. We should also provide other demobilized servicemen with timely readjustment assist- ance on a sound basis. The needs of veterans and their families not resulting directly from military service can be best met through the welfare pro- grams serving the whole population. These programs have been expanded and improved in recent years. Only the special and unique needs of servicemen and their de- pendents arising directly from military serv- ice should be provided for in special veterans' programs. Readjustment benefits. — Expenditures for education and training of World War II veterans are estimated at 626 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953, a decline of 860 mil- lion dollars from the revised estimates for the current fiscal year. The 1953 expendi- tures will provide for an average enrollment of 491,000 in school, job, and farm training courses. The reduction from an average enrollment of over one million in the cur- 1951 actual $1, 943 91 Expenditures 1952 estimated $1, 486 1953 estimated Recommended new obliga- tional authority for 1953 64 2,037 77 5 44 2,086 135 50 600 145 266 79 246 670 211 262 $626 75 72 2 37 2,149 100 56 68 695 107 210 $625 75 72 2 27 2,149 100 56 70 698 95 212 5,339 5,166 4,197 4,181 rent fiscal year reflects the fact that July 25, 1 95 1, was the deadline for initiation of train- ing under the program. By the end of the fiscal year 1953, approximately 7,800,000 veterans — about half of all the veterans of World War II — will have received education and training at a cost to the Government of 14.3 billion dollars. This investment is al- ready proving to be of great benefit to the veterans and the Nation. Other expenditures under the Service- men's Readjustment Act are for unemploy- ment and self-employment allowances and loan guarantees. In the fiscal year 1953, only the outlays for loan guarantee activities will continue to be large. Government ex- penditures for interest gratuities on guaran- teed loans and on account of defaulted loans are estimated to decline slightly to 72 million dollars. An estimated 391,000 new loans amounting to 3.3 billion dollars are expected to be guaranteed. This will raise to 21.5 billion dollars the aggregate of veterans' loans for homes, farms, and businesses guar- anteed by the Government since 1945. This Budget includes 71 million dollars to 108 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] cover the first year's cost of a new program of readjustment benefits for discharged serv- icemen who have served since the beginning of the Korean conflict. I recommend prompt enactment of such a program. However, I do not believe that extension of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act in its present form would be the proper way to meet the new need. The main assistance to be provided at this time should be a sound and constructive program of education and training. The new legislation should take account of the significant imperfections which have become apparent in our experi- ence with the "GI bill." All possible effort should be made to incorporate into any new program the lessons learned from that ex- perience. Studies now being made by the Congress should be of value in the consid- eration of pending bills to establish a new readjustment program for these veterans. Compensation and pensions. — It is esti- mated that under existing laws an average of 3,179,000 individuals and families will receive veterans' compensation and pension payments totaling more than 2.1 billion dol- lars in the fiscal year 1953. This is a net increase of 84,000 in the average number of cases and 63 million dollars in payments over the estimates for the current fiscal year. The expenditure estimates reflect an anticipated supplemental appropriation of 42 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 to cover ex- penditures for compensation and pensions, in part because of new legislation enacted by the first session of this Congress. The total of 2.1 billion dollars under present laws for the fiscal year 1953 includes 1.5 billion dollars in compensation payments to service-disabled veterans and families of those veterans who have died from service- connected causes, as well as 618 million dol- lars in pension payments for non-service- connected disabilities. Under existing laws expenditures for compensation and pensions will more than double in future years, with the increase entirely in non-service-connected pensions. Legislation to increase further the number of non-service-connected pension beneficiaries should be reviewed in light of the fact that most veterans who need finan- cial help will be covered by the old-age and survivors insurance program. In those cases where veterans are not covered by this pro- gram, the sensible remedy is to extend old- age and survivors insurance to include them. With respect to death and disability com- pensation payments arising from service causes, I recommend that the Congress care- fully review the rates and revise them where recent increases in the cost of living warrant. This Budget includes 100 million dollars to defray the cost of such increases. The legis- lation making the specific changes should take into account the new dependents' al- lowances for disabled veterans with families, and the increases in death compensation rates which have been enacted in recent years, as well as payments to beneficiaries under other Government programs. In particular, the Congress should carefully investigate the disparities which exist because of the fact that survivors of many servicemen receive both veterans' benefits and old-age and sur- vivors insurance benefits on the basis of military service, while families of other veterans receive only the veterans' benefits. Insurance and servicemen s indemnities. — After intensive investigation, the Congress early last year established a new system of $10,000 indemnities to families of servicemen who die while on active duty or within 120 days after discharge. These indemnities are provided for every serviceman without charge in lieu of the National Service Life Insurance which was previously available on an optional basis. They provide universal protection for servicemen's dependents. At the same time they cost the Government less than National Service Life Insurance. In- demnity payments to families of servicemen will be about 9 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953. In the Insurance Act of 1951, the Congress also provided an improved system of insur- ance to cover disabled and other servicemen after their discharge from the armed forces. This new insurance, financed through re- 109 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents volving funds, is based upon more realistic mortality tables and interest and premium rates than are used in the National Service Life Insurance program. Receipts in these funds will be 2 million dollars more than expenditures in 1953. In addition, the Government continues to reimburse the National Service Life Insur- ance and United States Government Life Insurance trust funds for the cost of deaths of policyholders traceable to war hazards, and also pays claims for certain veterans who failed to meet regular standards of insura- bility. It is estimated that Budget expendi- tures for these payments will rise to 242 mil- lion dollars in the current fiscal year because of casualties in Korea, but they are expected to decline to 61 million dollars in 1953. Further reductions are expected in subse- quent years, since new members of the armed forces are covered by the indemnity system. # Hospital and medical care. — With the opening of 20 new veterans' hospitals in the fiscal year 1953, the average number of patients is expected to increase by 4,400 above the current year's level. Correspondingly, current expenses for hospital and medical care of veterans are expected to increase 25 million dollars. The number of patients in hospitals and homes in the fiscal year 1953 is estimated to average about 134,000, of which about two- thirds are non-service-connected cases. It is estimated that the out-patient case load dur- ing the year will decline seven percent, to 3,486,000 visits and treatments. Total cur- rent expenses for hospital and medical care in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 695 million dollars. Hospital construction. — Expenditures for construction of hospital and domiciliary facilities for veterans are expected to decline in the fiscal year 1953 as the program to pro- vide 36,500 new beds nears completion. My Budget recommendations include 95 million dollars in new obligational authority to com- plete hospitals now under construction, to permit the construction of three new hospi- tals under the 36,500-bed program, and to begin conversion and modernization of exist- ing facilities. Other services and administration. — It is estimated that expenditures for administra- tion and miscellaneous services will be 52 million dollars less in the fiscal year 1953 than in the current year. About 21 million dollars of the reduction is due to the fact that the 1952 total included a nonrecurring outlay for automobiles for blind and amputee vet- erans. The remainder is a reduction in the expenses of administering the nonmedical benefit programs. This in part reflects de- clining workloads and in part more efficient methods of operation as the result of con- solidation of district offices and the substitu- tion of the servicemen's indemnity program for National Service Life Insurance. Trust funds. — The Servicemen's Indem- nity Act of 1 95 1 virtually terminated the issuance of new National Service Life Insur- ance policies, but did not affect 7.6 million policies now outstanding under National Service Life Insurance and United States Government Life Insurance trust funds. In the current fiscal year, expenditures from these two trust funds are substantially greater than receipts because the second special National Service Life Insurance dividend is still being paid. By the start of the fiscal year 1953 it is expected that divi- dend payments out of the National Service Life Insurance fund will be on a current basis. In that year expenditures and receipts from the two trust funds will approach a balance. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Expenditures for general Government services and activities in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 1.5 billion dollars. This is a net increase of 131 million dollars over the current fiscal year. The net increase in- cludes a rise of 148 million dollars in the Government's contribution, as employer, to the civil-service retirement system, higher expenditures to handle the increased volume of tax collections, and decreases in several items. 1 10 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Veterans' Life Insurance Funds (Trust funds) [Fiscal years. In millions] Item Receipts : Transfers from general and special accounts Interest on investments Premiums and other Total Expenditures : Dividends to policyholders Benefits and other Total Net withdrawal (— ) or net accumulation Balance in funds at close of year Jan. 21 [18 J 1951 actual $45 205 520 1951 estimated $186 211 407 1953 estimated $56 206 425 770 804 687 236 455 654 506 186 537 691 1,160 723 79 -356 -36 6,772 6,416 6,380 General Government [Fiscal years. In millions] Expenditures 1951 1952 1953 Program or agency actual estimated estimated Legislative functions $40 $43 $49 Judicial functions 28 30 26 Executive direction and management 9 10 8 Federal financial management: Bureau of Internal Revenue 244 279 303 Customs collection, debt management, and other 137 138 151 General Accounting Office 32 33 32 Other central services : Central property and records management 146 230 199 Civil Service Commission 16 20 22 Legal services (Department of Justice) 8 10 11 Government Printing Office 12 13 12 Government payment toward civilian employees' retirement system 305 310 458 Other general government : Immigration control (Department of Justice) ... 33 41 44 Public building construction (General Services Administration) 24 23 12 Dispersal of Government activities (proposed legislation) 5 Other 175 173 152 Total 1, 209 1, 353 1, 484 1 Less than one-half million dollars. Recommended new obliga- teonal authority for 1953 $44 25 7 305 153 32 198 22 11 28 458 44 (0 15 101 1,443 III [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents A sharp decline in expenditures for public building construction reflects my Budget policy of limiting new construction to proj- ects directly supporting our security effort. Federal financial management. — The Revenue Act of 1951 increased the amount and variety of taxes to be collected. The increased funds provided in this Budget will enable the Bureau of Internal Revenue to expand its auditing and enforcement opera- tions to assure better compliance with the tax laws. The maintenance of public con- fidence in the tax collection process is essen- tial to our tax system. To this end, steps have been taken or are in process to insure the integrity of the tax-collecting system by tight- ening up the supervision of all Bureau oper- ations throughout the country, establishing an inspection service independent of the rest of the Bureau, and speeding up the prosecu- tion of delinquent taxpayers. Furthermore, I have transmitted to the Congress, under the Reorganization Act of 1949, a plan for reorganization of the Bureau for the purpose of bringing about an improved organization with clearer lines of authority and responsi- bility, and providing that all positions in the Bureau not now filled through civil service, except that of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, shall be so filled hereafter. Most of the increase in expenditures for tax enforcement will be used to intensify investigations of the tax returns and activi- ties of racketeers and to enforce the new wagering taxes levied by the Revenue Act of 1 95 1. To perform this work effectively, some 7,000 employees will have to be added to the Bureau staff before the end of the current fiscal year. Early approval of a supplemental appropriation will be needed to make this possible. The Renegotiation Board, established un- der a statute enacted last spring, is now organizing to review profits earned under defense-related contracts and to prevent or recover excessive payments by the Govern- ment. This Budget includes an estimate of 7.3 million dollars for expenses of the Board during the fiscal year 1953. Central property and records manage- ment.—-Under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the General Services Administration has brought about more efficient and effective use of the Government's real and personal property and is endeavoring to eliminate nonessential requirements, to set inventory levels at a minimum, and to apply stricter standards of use and replacement. This program has been reoriented to meet the needs of the defense agencies and other Government agencies for space, equipment, and supplies. The volume of records preserved by oper- ating agencies and in recently established regional records centers is continually being reduced, and the storage of the remaining records is being further centralized to release scarce office and warehouse space. By the end of the fiscal year 1953, tne regional records center program will release for other uses nearly 2 million square feet of space and approximately 200,000 filing cabinets. Civilian personnel management. — An in- crease in Government personnel has been required to meet the needs of our security programs. The Civil Service Commission has had to expand its examining, recruiting, and placement activities to safeguard the merit system. The use of expert boards of examiners will be extended and improved and a program of centralized recruiting in major employment centers will be inaugu- rated to eliminate duplication of recruiting efforts. At present, a few Federal agencies have authority to assign a limited number of per- sonnel for advanced training in fields di- rectly related to the work of their agencies. In order to increase the productivity of em- ployees in various lines of scientific, technical, and administrative work, I recommend that the Congress extend standard but limited authority to Government agencies generally, so that they may provide such training at institutions of learning, scientific laborato- ries, or private establishments for a small number of their personnel. Experience under the several existing 112 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] statutes authorizing positions in grades GS- 16, -17, and -18 under the Classification Act shows that the total number of allowable positions in these top-level grades should be increased if the Government is to attract and retain the most competent and responsible employees. The recent pay increases voted for Federal employees under the Classification Act of 1949 created a problem in some Federal agencies which are authorized to fix pay rates by administrative action. In cases where these rates customarily approximate those of the Classification Act and no gen- erally comparable increases have been given, provision is made in this Budget for the necessary increases. Federal civilian employees' retirement, — The cost of civilian employees' retirement benefits is financed by contributions from the employees and the Government. By law, Federal employees covered under the system are required to contribute to a trust fund 6 percent of their salaries, and the Government is required to contribute an amount sufficient to cover the remaining cost of benefits. The Government contribution for the fiscal year 1953 consists of a normal contribution of 2.78 percent of payroll to pay currendy accruing costs, and a deficiency contribution to pay interest on and provide for amortization of the Government's ac- crued liability to the fund. This liability results from employees' services rendered prior to the effective date of the system, credits for military service, and insufficient appropriations for the Government contri- bution in some years. This Budget includes 458 million dollars for the annual contribu- tion of the Government for the fiscal year 1953 to the Civil Service retirement and disability trust fund, 148 million dollars more than in the current fiscal year. This estimate takes into account the higher benefits for future annuitants which will result from a recent advance in the pay rates for Govern- ment employees. It also provides for the first of 30 annual payments to amortize the Government's accrued liability to the fund so that the retirement system eventually will be financed on a full reserve basis, as is con- templated by the retirement act. Federal employees' unemployment com- pensation. — Legislation is needed to provide unemployment compensation benefits for Federal employees, as part of the present Federal-State system of unemployment in- surance. In the past, Federal employees relied on accumulated annual leave to pro- vide income during temporary periods of unemployment. This is a distortion of the purpose of annual leave. Moreover, the amount of protection afforded through leave accumulation varies greatly among individ- uals and without any particular relationship to the likelihood of unemployment. Because of recent laws which temporarily stopped the accumulation of leave, and the new leave law of 1 95 1 reducing the amount of leave per- mitted to most Federal employees, many of them are now without even this uncertain protection. This applies especially to the temporary workers hired during the present emergency. Dispersal of Government activities. — Last year I recommended a program for the dis- persal of essential units of Government in the vicinity of the District of Columbia in the interests of security and reduction of congestion in the metropolitan area. The Public Works Committee of the Senate, after extensive hearings and delibera- tions, reported a bill providing for the con- struction of a limited number of Federal buildings outside of but in the vicinity of and accessible to the District of Columbia, the construction of a circumferential highway outside of the boundaries of the District of Columbia, and the permanent decentraliza- tion of units of Government which could operate at distant locations without signifi- cant loss of efficiency. I am in full accord with the objectives set forth in the bill and the accompanying committee report. I am convinced that any program which fails to place primary emphasis on dispersal to 113 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents nearby areas would not be in the interest of security, efficient administration, or good area planning. Subsequent review of that part of the pro- gram involving dispersal has led to the con- clusion that presently owned Government land should be used as sites for necessary buildings and facilities, with resulting econ- omy. This Budget includes 15 million dol- lars as a preliminary estimate of the amount needed in the fiscal year 1953. I strongly urge approval of this modified program. Payments on Federal real estate. — The Congress now has before it a proposal, drafted in the Bureau of the Budget, to es- tablish a general system of limited payments to State and local governments in cases in which their finances have been adversely affected by Federal Government acquisitions of real estate. The problem is one of long standing. It is becoming more acute as we acquire more property for military bases and other defense-related facilities which im- pose new burdens upon some local gov- ernments. The enactment of a reasonable solution will help to spread governmental costs more equitably and at the same time will strengthen our Federal-State system of government. Most of the interest payments now being made by the Federal Government result from the large increase in the public debt which arose out of World War II. In the fiscal year 1953, interest will cost the Gov- ernment about six times as much as it did in the prewar fiscal year 1940 and will ac- count for over seven percent of total Budget expenditures. Interest on the public debt. — Expenditures for interest on the public debt in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at 6,150 million dollars, an increase of 300 million dollars over the 1952 estimate and 535 million dollars over 1 95 1. The rise in expenditures is due both to an increase in the amount of interest- bearing debt and to higher interest rates. On the basis of present estimates of re- ceipts and expenditures, the debt will in- crease by 20 billion dollars during the fiscal years 1952 and 1953. However, because of the lag between the borrowing of new funds and the initial interest payments, the fulL impact of the debt increase will not be re- flected in increased interest payments until the fiscal year 1954. During the past calendar year, the average interest rate on the total interest-bearing debt has increased by about one-tenth of one per- cent. With a debt of the present size, this means an increase of over 250 million dollars in the computed annual interest charge.. This increase in the interest charge cannot,, however, be directly associated with the increase in interest payments during the fiscal year 1953. The estimate of expenditures for the fiscal year 1953 is based upon the present levels of interest rates since it is not possible to predict changes in rates in the future. The continued expansion of special issues to Government trust funds and other Govern- ment agencies will further increase interest payments in the fiscal year 1953. The aver- age interest rate on most of these issues is- Interest [Fiscal years. In millions] Item Interest on the public debt Interest on refunds of receipts . Interest on trust deposits Total 1951 actual $5, 615 93 6 5,714 Expenditures 1952 estimated $5, 850 100 5 5,955 1953 estimated $6, 150 101 4 6,255 Obligational authority for 1953 (permanent indefinite) $6, 150" 101 4 6, 255> 114 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 21 [18] higher than the average rate paid on the rest of the public debt. For the first time in several years, interest accruals on savings bonds are not expected to rise in the fiscal year 1953. In fact, they may fall slighdy. Interest accruals on series E savings bonds sold during World War II have now reached maximum levels. In- creased accruals on bonds sold since World War II will be more than offset by reduced accruals on maturing obligations which will, at the option of the owner, either be re- deemed or extended for another 10 years under the authority of legislation enacted last spring. Interest on refunds. — Interest is paid on refunded receipts because the Federal Gov- ernment has had the temporary use of the funds. Most refunds result from the over- payment of taxes by individuals and corpo- rations. The rate paid on such refunds is six percent, the same rate that taxpayers are charged on delinquent payments. Refunds of tax overpayments are expected to be higher in the fiscal years 1952 and 1953 than in 1951. This will result in an increase in interest expenditures. IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF GOVERN- MENT PROGRAMS In presenting to the Congress a Budget that reflects expanding Federal programs in support of the Nation's security effort, I am keenly aware of the challenging job of man- agement placed upon the Federal Govern- ment. I have already outlined in previous sections of this Message a number of im- provements in the management and opera- tion of various parts of the Government. There are, in addition, other developments to which I wish to draw attention here. Since the start of the defense mobilization program, we have done a great deal to adapt the machinery of Government for the effi- cient performance of new tasks. Practically all agencies of the Government today have reoriented their activities, and many have modified their internal structures to carry out their new responsibilities. In addition, several new agencies have been created pri- marily to assist in the coordination of our security programs. In the field of produc- tion and stabilization, the Office of Defense Mobilization, the Defense Production Ad- ministration, and the Economic Stabilization Agency were organized during the months immediately following the attack on Korea. More recently, the Defense Materials Pro- curement Agency and the Small Defense Plants Administration have been established. In the field of foreign assistance, the creation of the coordinating position of the Director for Mutual Security, the termination of the Economic Cooperation Administration and the creation of the Mutual Security Agency, and the integration of the Institute of Inter- American Affairs into the Technical Co- operation Administration in the Department of State represent important developments. The basic organizational shifts to meet the demands of our security programs have been substantially completed. We are now faced with the continuing problem of in- creasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our governmental machinery. In order to assure continuing progress in this field, the Executive agencies are re- quired to submit programs for management improvement along with their annual budget requests. These programs were examined as this Budget was prepared in order to identify the most urgent operating problems and to find opportunities for re- ducing operating costs. I have also had the benefit of advice from members of my Ad- visory Committee on Management, upon which I have placed the special duty of re- viewing the status and progress of the man- agement of our defense mobilization programs. Because the largest share of Federal funds is spent by the Department of Defense, par- ticular consideration is being given to its management problems. Substantial progress has been made in placing the accounting and financial administration of manufactur- ing and other business-type operations of "5 [18] Jan. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents the military departments on a sound and business-like basis. This will enable better management and cost control of operations such as ordnance arsenals, sea transports, and printing plants. While principal emphasis has necessarily been placed on the organization and man- agement of civilian and military mobiliza- tion programs, the general improvement of management in other parts of the Executive branch has gone forward. A notable action was the reorganization plan for providing single direction of the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation. The Veterans Adminis- tration is consolidating into a smaller num- ber of offices insurance activities formerly performed by n district offices — an action that will result in an annual saving of several million dollars. The Administrator of Vet- erans' Affairs has also engaged manage- ment consultants to undertake a comprehen- sive examination of the organization and management of the Veterans Administra- tion. The Post Office Department has re- cently inaugurated a new money-order sys- tem which will save several million dollars annually, and is taking other steps to im- prove the efficiency of the postal service. These are illustrative of the vigorous actions I shall continue to expect from the manage- ment improvement programs that all agen- cies have established at my request. In addition to actions taken by individual departments and agencies to improve their organizations and to obtain greater operating economies, improvements of a Government- wide nature are also being made. Of major significance are those in the Government's fiscal operations, made under the joint ac- counting program being conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Direc- tor of the Bureau of the Budget in collabora- tion with all other agencies of the Govern- ment. That program, greatly advanced by the enactment of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, is directed mainly at providing full, accurate and timely fi- nancial information concerning the opera- tions of the Government. This will enable Government officials to carry out their func- tions more effectively and economically, and will provide the taxpayer with better infor- mation as to where and how the tax dollar is spent. Programs throughout the Government chiefly concerned with the collection of sta- tistical data and economic analysis have also been reviewed as recommended by the Task Force on Statistical Agencies to the Commission on Organization of the Execu- tive Branch of the Government. The objective of this appraisal was to avoid overlapping and duplication in statistical programs and to eliminate unnecessary ex- penditures. The Budget recommendations for these activities are designed particularly to develop an orderly Government-wide pro- gram which will meet at minimum costs the new requirements for economic information imposed by the security effort. It is my intention to maintain a vigorous program for the improvement of Govern- ment management on all fronts. During the coming year I shall continue to make im- provements in the mobilization agencies under the authority of the Defense Produc- tion Act. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949, I have already submitted to the Con- gress a plan to strengthen the Bureau of In- ternal Revenue. I expect to propose to the Congress additional reorganization plans, as well as to recommend legislation for admin- istrative changes. A number of the recom- mendations of the Commission on Orga- nization of the Executive Branch of the Government which require legislation have not yet been acted upon by the Congress. I urge the Congress to review those recom- mendations and act on the ones which are still applicable and which will contribute to the more effective administration of the Government. This Budget represents the program I am recommending for promoting peace and safe- guarding security. In the current world crisis, the price of u6 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 22 [19] peace is preparedness. In terms of the sac- rifices which this involves, it is a heavy price, but when freedom is at stake, it is a price which all of us will gladly pay. It is my hope — and I know this hope is shared by all the peoples of the world — that we can some day cast off the heavy bur- den of armaments and devote our full ener- gies to fighting the only war in which all mankind can be victorious — the war against poverty, disease, and human misery. This Nation will continue to do every- thing in its power to transform that hope into reality. Harry S. Truman. note: The message was transmitted to the Senate and to the House of Representatives on January 21. The message and the budget document (1222 pp.) are published in House Document 285 (82 Cong., 2d sess.). 19 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Urging Action on Mine Safety Legislation. January 22, 1952 My dear ; I am writing to urge that the Congress take prompt and effective action to help prevent the shocking fatalities in the coal mines of this country. On December 21, 195 1, one hundred and nineteen miners were killed in a single mine disaster at West Frankfort, Illinois. Four years ago, one hundred and eleven men lost their lives in a similar disaster at Cen- tralia, Illinois. In the years between, thou- sands have been killed or injured, in less spectacular mine tragedies throughout the country. Yet little or none of this was necessary. Most of it could surely have been avoided if the Department of the Interior had had au- thority to enforce compliance with Federal standards of mine safety. I urge the Con- gress to lose no more time in enacting legis- lation which will give the Department the powers it needs to save the lives of men who work in coal mines. I have received from the Secretary of the Interior a special report on the West Frank- fort disaster. This report explains very clearly and concisely why we must have Federal legislation to deal with the safety situation in the coal mines. I hope all Mem- bers of Congress will read this report. I am sure it will make the urgent need for action plain to everyone. Bills are now pending before the Congress to grant enforcement powers to the Interior Department. The Secretary of the Interior indicates in his report that he believes the provisions of these bills should be strength- ened in some respects, to make sure the en- forcement job can be done right. I cannot urge too strongly that the Con- gress take action on these bills at once. Al- most every day, miners are being killed need- lessly, somewhere in this country. We have got to put a stop to it. The miners and their families are entitled to protection by their Government. It is our plain duty to keep the coal mines just as safe as human skill and effort can make them. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The report by the Secretary of the Interior, dated January 22, 1952, is published in the Congressional Record (vol. 98, p. 362). For the statement by the President upon signing the amendment to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act on July 16, 1952, see Item 206. 55-672- 117 [20] Jan. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents 20 Letter to Eric Johnston Requesting Him To Serve as Chairman of the International Development Advisory Board. January 23, 1952 [ Released January 23, 1952. Dated January 15, 1952 ] My dear Eric: In addressing the Congress this month on the Point 4 Program of technical cooperation in underdeveloped areas, I expressed my conviction that there is nothing of greater importance in all of our foreign policy. There is no work that shows more clearly what we stand for, and what we want to achieve. I should like you to join with me in carry- ing this work forward. When I reluctantly accepted your resigna- tion as Administrator of the Economic Stabilization Agency, you wrote me of your intention to continue as a private citizen to work for a national policy which will pro- mote our security and survival. As a private citizen you can perform an inestimable serv- ice to the free world by accepting the chair- manship of the International Development Advisory Board. The Board was created in accordance with the mandate of the Act for International Development to advise and consult with me on the planning and operation of the Point 4 Program. The present members of the Board are men and women outstanding in their public service and outstanding in their respective fields of business, labor, agricul- ture, public health, and education. I am confident that under your leadership the Board will achieve continued success by bringing wide knowledge, varied experience, and intense interest to bear upon the admin- istration of the Program. I am asking you to accept this new responsibility because you have demonstrated in your governmental and private undertakings the capacity to call forth both cooperation and endeavor from your co-workers. I hope that the duties to which you have so recently returned with the Motion Picture Association will permit you to assist me once again. Always sincerely, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Eric A. Johnston, President, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., 1600 Eye Street, N.W., Washington 6, D.C.] note: Mr. Johnston's reply o£ January 22, 1952, accepting the position, was released with the Presi- dent's letter. He was confirmed by the Senate on January 31, 1952, and was sworn in on February 18. The International Development Advisory Board was established on September 8, 1950, by Executive Order 10159 "Providing for the Administration of the Act for International Development" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 338). See also 1950 volume, this series, Items 289, 294. 21 The President's News Conference of January 24, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no announcements to make. I will listen to questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, at a press confer- ence a few months ago you said you wouldn't disclose whether you would run again until after your three messages had gone to the Hill. They have gone to the Hill, and I just wondered if the president. It's a little too soon after it. [Laughter'] [2.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Steven- son of Illinois, in declaring that he had filed for a second term, said that only death, Il8 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 24 [21] health, or higher office would prevent his seeking reelection as Governor. The other night he called on you at the Blair House. I wonder if you offered him any one of the three, and if so which one? [Laughter] the president. Well, of course, I didn't offer him death. I didn't offer him anything in particular, except to talk about the general political situation — worldwide, national, and Illinois. And he was particularly inter- ested— and what he came to see me about was the mine safety proposition. He is very much interested in mine safety, just as I am.1 And we had a very pleasant visit all around. Q. You didn't offer him higher office? THE PRESIDENT. How COuld I? [3.] Q. Mr. President, out in Illinois, one of my colleagues suggested that joining the mother of Presidents we have Senator Ke- fauver, Brien McMahon, and perhaps Adlai Stevenson, and Everett Dirksen, maybe — all looking anxious. Is that a part of the sort of stabilizing action — favorite son pinup — so nobody gets the president. I can't answer that ques- tion because I don't know. Q. Mr. President, did you invite Governor Stevenson to come to Washington to talk to you? the president. Governor Stevenson came to Washington to discuss mine safety. Of course, when any Democratic Governor comes to Washington, he always asks for an interview with the President. That is the way it happened. [4.] Q. Mr. President, I have here a political button which is being passed out freely. It says "Elect Kefauver President." Mr. President, is this a definitive Democratic button ? the president. I don't know. [5.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask one on that Stevenson question in a much simpler form the president. Go right ahead. Q. did you have any part in inflating all these trial balloons? Would you say that the Governor was a favorite in case you de- cide not to run? the president. No. I had no hand in it. That is surmise, and it's made by the great- est surmisers in the country. So many of them, you know, who can always tell what is going to happen. [6.] Q. I wanted to know, Mr. Presi- dent, as to whether you favored the nomi- nation of Attorney General Taylor 2 for U.S. Senator in Missouri, and if you told Mr. Pendergast8 recently that he had your per- mission to endorse Taylor at the Jackson Day dinner? the president. The matter has never been discussed with me by anybody. Q. Never discussed? the president. Never been discussed with me by anybody. However, I am very fond of "Buck" Taylor. [7.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to send a personal representative to the Vatican? the president. I have the matter — I at- tempted to do that last fall. I don't usually back up when I start out to do things. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, the question was per- sonal representative, not the president. No, no. I am not going to send any personal representative. The Senate is going to have to assume the re- sponsibility when the matter's done. [8.] Q. Mr. President, I hate to take up your time the president. Go ahead. Q. on such things. I recall you did endorse someone last time, and I wonder if you intend to again — in Missouri? the president. I will cross that bridge when I come to it. The matter has never been discussed with me. I have an idea that 1 See Item 19. 2 J. E. Taylor, Attorney General of Missouri. 8 James M. Pendergast, Democratic Party leader in Kansas City, Mo. 119 [2i ] Jan. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents it will be discussed with me at a later date, but I can't make any comment on it now. Q. Mr. President, would you by chance have a personal interest in the candidate for the Senate from Missouri this year? the president. Yes, sure I would. [Laughter] I have got a perfect right to have an interest in the candidate from Missouri. Q. Perhaps I didn't put it the way I meant it. [More laughter] Q. Is there any chance that you might let us know your plans for 1952 by filing for the Senate in Missouri? the president. It's quite a long time be- fore those filings close, and I will let you know in plenty of time. [9.] Q. Mr. President, is there any spe- cial reason why you don't want to tell us now whether or not you are going to run? I am just curious about that. the president. Because I am not prepared to make the announcement. [10.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Granger, I believe, has filed for the Senate in the Utah primary — Democratic. Is it your hope that he be unopposed in this primary? the president. Yes, it is. [n.] Q. You still know whether or not you are going to run? the president. Yes, I know what I am going to do, and when I get around to it, I will tell you about it. [12.] Q. Mr. President, I know that you ordinarily don't take any part whatever in Democratic primaries the president. That's right. Except in Missouri. Q. Except in Missouri. Sir, will the one in Illinois be any exception, in view of some statements that Senator Kefauver has made? the president. I will take no hand in any primary outside of the State of Missouri. [13.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to Stevenson a minute, I wonder if you would say whether you think that he would be a good candidate on the Democratic ticket? the president. Well, every good Demo- crat is a good candidate. It runs in the blood. [Laughter] Q. Do you think that he has the qualifi- cations for President? the president. Now I am not in a posi- tion, as President of the United States, to endorse a candidate for President, except the one that I could endorse if I took a notion to endorse. [Laughter] Q. That's what we're waiting for. [14.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask — just a moment ago you said you would take no hand in any primary the president. That's right. Q. unless you become a candidate for President yourself? the president. Well, of course, that's dif- ferent. Of course, I don't have to go into any primary if I become a candidate for President. I will make you a statement on that. You opened the door. That is some- thing that I am very much interested in. I wish we could have a national presi- dential primary. Woodrow Wilson tried to get that in 19 13. He didn't get anywhere with it. If we had a national presidential primary, that would give everybody who wanted to run for President a chance to get into that primary on a national basis, without having to make all these State campaigns. [15.] Q. Mr. President, to avoid the back-door approach, would you have any comment to make on the first Democrat who has made himself available? He said he is trying for the presidential nomination in Chicago. the president. You are talking about Mr. Kefauver? Q. No one else. the president. I think he is a nice fellow, and I think he is a good Senator. [16.] Q. Mr. President, I believe there is now in process of preparation a special mes- sage to the Congress on the St. Lawrence Sea- way and Power project? the president. That is correct. Q. I wonder if you could tell us, first, 120 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 24 [21] which day that will be sent to Congress? the president. I tried to get it ready for today, and we couldn't quite get it ready. Just as soon as it is ready, why it will go down. It will be in a very short time.4 Q. And the second question I would like to ask, if I may: will the message indicate any change in your position to date, if Con- gress should fail to act on the seaway by a certain time? the president. I don't understand what you mean by that. My position on the St. Lawrence Seaway has been the same since 1935, and it hasn't changed. And it won't change. But we must have the St. Lawrence Seaway. If we don't want to be a partner in it, I am sure that the Canadian Govern- ment itself will build it. [17.] Q. Mr. President, to get back to this Kefauver business, about him being a good Senator, would you like him to remain a good Senator? the president. Well, I always like to see a good Senator in the Senate. I hope we can get one from Missouri to go along with the good Senator that we have there now. Q. Do you mean Mr. Kem ? 5 Q. Mr. President, along with your be- lief the president. Hennings.6 [18.] Q. along with your belief in a national presidential primary, do you also believe that the retiring President should not take an active hand in the selection of his successor if nominated ? the president. I didn't say that. The President has the same right as any other citizen. [19.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of Senator Kefauver, he said yesterday he did not think that the present administra- tion has done all it should to stamp out cor- ruption. Do you have any comment on that? the president. I haven't seen the Sena- tor's statement, and I don't know what is in * See Item 23. 5 Senator James P. Kem of Missouri. 6 Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri. it on second hand, and I have no comment to make on it. [20.] Q. Mr. President, I don't want to press you too much, but can you give us any rough idea, just generally, when you might be able to tell us about your plans — say sev- eral months, or several weeks? the president. I can't give you any date. Q. Mr. President, in the event that you were to decide not to run again, would you stand for the Senate? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion. Q. Mr. President, in the sort of trade term, would you call that leaving the door open? [Laughter] the president. Yes, I do. The door is always open on politics. It's the — the great American game. I think it beats football, baseball, and basketball and everything else. I like politics. And I have been in it — come January 2, 1953, I will have been in elective office 30 years. And I never was elected to an office I wanted, except in 1948. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, do you share the opinion of John Nangle,7 that you are entided to a rest from the Presidency and ought to return to the Senate? the president. I'm not tired. [Laughter] Q. We couldn't hear that, Mr. President. the president. I said I'm not tired. Q. Mr. President. Several Democratic leaders have come out of your office and have said that you are the strongest candidate the Democrats could propose. I was just won- dering if you favored the strongest candidate of the party for the ticket the president. I am in favor of a candi- date on the Democratic ticket that can be elected. As I told you the last time we dis- cussed this subject, it would be a terrible thing for the Republicans to get control of this Government at this time. Q. Mr. President, you said a few minutes ago, with regard to a President endorsing a 7 Democratic national committeeman for Missouri. 121 [2i ] Jan. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents candidate for President, that you wouldn't want to endorse any but one. Do you have one particular man in mind? the president. No. Not at the present time. Q. Mr. President, would you announce your intentions before the last day for filing in Missouri? the president. I probably will. Q. What was that date again out there? the president. He wanted to know if I would announce my intentions before the last day for filing in Missouri. Q. What is that date, sir? the president. I don't know. Q. The last week in April. the president. I don't know. They have changed it since I was running for the Senate before. I could tell you when I was in the Senate, but I don't know now. [21.] Q. Mr. President, the Prime Min- ister of The Netherlands,8 sir, saw you this week. Could you say something about your talks with him? the president. Yes, I had a most pleasant talk with the Prime Minister of The Nether- lands, one I think that was satisfactory to both him and me. Q. Could you say what you talked about? the president. We talked about every- thing and how it afreets the Adantic Treaty, particularly the interests of The Netherlands in the matter. [22.] Q. Mr. President, in Eric John- ston's new job, will he report directly to you, or to Mr. Harriman? 9 the president. He will report to me, and he will also report to Mr. Harriman. That doesn't prevent him from reporting to Mr. Harriman. [23.] Q. Mr. President, last year, I be- lieve, you classified the irrigation project in New Mexico as an emergency proposition, yet I believe it was left out of the budget this year. the president. Yes, it was. 8 Prime Minister Willem Drees of The Netherlands. 9W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. Q. Any comment? the president. There were a great many other projects in the same condition that were left out. [24.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any new assignment for James E. Webb? 10 the president. He is going to be a con- sultant to the State Department. [25.] Q. Mr. President, do you favor our taking retaliation against the Russians for restricting our diplomats still further? the president. That is a matter that you will have to ask the Secretary of State. I think he answered it, I am not sure. [26.] Q. Mr. President, a farm labor advisory group came to see you the other day on the Mexican labor legislation. Would you tell us what you told them? the president. Well, I will tell you what they told me. [Laughter] They endorsed the program which I have sent to the House and the Senate. The bills are pending in both Houses, and that group was unani- mously in favor of what those bills provide. [27.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask you one outside of politics. Has Mr. Cald- well xl sent you a note asking you — urging you to pick a successor to him as Civil De- fense Administrator? the president. No, I haven't seen it. [28.] Q. Mr. President, since General Eisenhower's statements of his availability on the Republican ticket, and your subse- quent comment last week, I wonder if it would be an impertinence to ask you if you have heard anything from the General? the president. No, except in the ordinary reports that I receive from him all the time. They did not refer to politics. [29.] Q. Mr. President, with regard to General Eisenhower, last time we met you were reminded of a historical precedent in General Scott.12 10 On January 23 the White House had made pub- lic the text of the President's letter accepting the resignation of Mr. Webb as Under Secretary of State. 11 Millard Caldwell, Administrator, Federal Civil Defense Administration. 12 See Item 7 [10]. 122 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 26 [22] the president. That's right. Q. I wonder if the latest candidacy of Senator Kefauver reminded you of any his- torical precedent? the president. It does, but I don't care to comment on it. [Laughter] [3°-] Q- Mr. President, in your conversa- tion with Paul Fitzpatrick,13 did you discuss a potential Democratic candidate for United States Senator? the president. The discussion between Paul Fitzpatrick and myself had to do with the political situation in the State of New York. The only candidate that was dis- cussed was discussed by Paul when he came out and talked to you fellows. [31-] Q- Mr. President, may I ask one question — all these people coming out of the White House and saying that they — that you are going to run or you are not going to run — and this and that — have you told any of these men your intentions, sir, if that is not an impertinence? the president. I have told them just ex- actly what I have told you ladies and gende- men. They draw their own conclusions, just like you do. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, have you told close friends — as has been sometimes said — that you would rather not seek reelection? the president. Well, anybody who sits at the President's desk over a period of time feels sometimes like he would very much like to leave it, on account of the fact that it is the most strenuous job in the world. It carries more responsibility than any other job in the world, and it is a difficult one to fill 13 Chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee. creditably. I have never told anybody that I expected to leave it, or that I expected to stay there. Q. Mr. President, would it be possible to quote you directly on that last statement on that? the president. I don't think so. I would rather not start that precedent because you will be wanting to quote the whole inter- view. [32.] Q. Well, Mr. President, I am in- trigued by your saying about Mr. Kefauver you like to keep good Senators in the Senate. You don't mean that good Senators should not come to the White House, do you? the president. No. [Laughter] I came from there. Q. That's a precedent. the president. It's not the first one that came there. I remember one back there in 1920. Q. Was he a good one? Q. Mr. President, you don't seem to be very enthusiastic about Senator Kefauver's candidacy? the president. Say that again? Q. You don't seem to be very enthusi- astic about Mr, Kefauver's candidacy? the president. Well, there are going to be a great many candidates, and I don't want to play any favorites. I want them all to have a fair chance. [Laughter] Merriman Smith, United Press Associa- tions: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. You're welcome, Smitty. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- first news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, January 24, 1952. 22 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the Labor Disputes in the Aluminum Industry. January 26, 1952 Dear Mr. Feinsinger: On the basis of information and advice submitted to me by the Office of Defense Mobilization and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, I am of the opinion that the several disputes between the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and the International Council of Aluminum Work- 123 [22] Jan. 26 Public Papers of the Presidents ers of America, AFL, and certain companies in the aluminum industry are of a character which substantially threaten the progress of national defense. Thus, in accordance with Executive Order 10233, I am referring the disputes to the Wage Stabilization Board and asking that the Board investigate and inquire into the issues in dispute and promptly re- port to me with its recommendations to the parties as to fair and equitable terms of settlement. I am asking the Federal Media- tion and Conciliation Service to provide the Board with a record of the issues in dispute. There are three separate disputes involv- ing the following unions and companies: The United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and the Aluminum Company of Amer- ica. Plants at: New Kensington, Pennsylvania Alcoa, Tennessee Detroit, Michigan Edgewater, New Jersey Bridgeport, Connecticut Mobile, Alabama Richmond, Indiana Bauxite, Arkansas Drury, Arkansas Baden, North Carolina The International Council of Aluminum Workers of America, AFL, and the Alumi- num Company of America. Plants at: Massina, New York Chillicothe, Ohio Cressona, Pennsylvania Davenport, Iowa Lafayette, Indiana East St. Louis, Illinois United Steelworkers of America, CIO, and the Kaiser Company. Plants at: Halethorpe, Maryland Tacoma, Washington Newark, Ohio Spokane, Washington (2) The report of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service indicates that the unions and companies involved in these dis- putes have made very little progress in resolv- ing their differences. Strike dates are sched- uled by the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for January 31, and by the International Council of Aluminum Workers, AFL, for February 2. In the opinion of the Service, it is entirely unlikely that further bargaining or mediation and conciliation could be suc- cessful in time to avoid serious production loss throughout this vital industry. The na- ture of the production process is such that the closing down of operations must begin considerably in advance of the final termina- tion of operations in order to avoid damage to facilities. By the same token, the resump- tion of full production after a stoppage has occurred takes considerable time. For this reason a work stoppage of even one day en- tails the loss of many days of much-needed production. The companies represented in these dis- putes account for over 70% of the production of basic aluminum. A curtailment of these operations in the aluminum industry would have an immediate and serious impact on many of our defense production programs. Aluminum is a key material in the defense program and is in short supply. The parties of these disputes should co- operate fully in maintaining normal work and production schedules while the disputes are before the Board. I am sure that the Board will proceed as rapidly as possible in the task of recommending to the parties fair and equitable terms of settlement of the disputes. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. Nathan P. Feinsinger, Chairman, Wage Stabili- zation Board, Washington 25, D.C.] note: On July 29, 1952, Mr. Feinsinger reported to the President as follows: "The Board appointed panels to conduct hearings and report the positions of the parties to the Board in the two cases involving the Aluminum Company of America. At the request of the parties, hearings were postponed indefinitely in the Kaiser Alumi- num & Chemical Corporation case. "Because of the close relationship of collective bargaining in the Aluminum and Steel industries, 124 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 28 [23] the Board decided to make no recommendations to the parties until a settlement was reached in the Steel industry. In the Kaiser case and in the case involving the A.F. of L. unions and the Aluminum Corporation of America, settlements were reached by the parties before the negotiation of the agreement in Steel. These settlements were submitted to the Board as voluntary petitions and have been approved. "In the case involving the United Steel workers of America and the Aluminum Company of America, the parties resumed negotiations on July 22 at the request of the Board. These negotiations have just produced an agreement which terminates the dispute. "I am happy to report that there were no strikes at any of the plants involved in these disputes and that the parties complied with the request of the Board that normal production and work schedules be maintained in the national interest." Executive Order 10233, to which the President referred, is entitled "Amending Executive Order 1 01 61 with Respect to Wage Stabilization and Settle- ment of Labor Disputes" (Apr. 21, 1951; 3 CFR, 1 949-1 953 Comp., p. 743). 23 Special Message to the Congress Urging Action on the St. Lawrence Seaway. January 28, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I wish to call to the attention of the Congress the immediate urgency of action on legislation to authorize the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. As the result of events that have taken place since the first session of the Eighty- second Congress, we confront an entirely new situation in dealing with this public improvement — a project recommended by every United States President and Canadian Prime Minister since World War I. For eleven years, since 1941, there has been before the Congress for approval an Agree- ment between the Canadian and United States Governments providing for joint con- struction of the St. Lawrence project. The Congress has not yet approved this Agree- ment. Now the Canadian Government has officially proposed, if the Congress does not approve the 194 1 Agreement at an early date, to construct the seaway as a solely Canadian undertaking, simultaneously with the con- struction of the power phase of the project by the Province of Ontario in association with an appropriate agency in the United States. Prime Minister St. Laurent of Canada visited Washington last September in order to lay this proposal before the United States Government. At that meeting, we found ourselves in complete agreement on the vital importance to the security and the economies of both Canada and the United States of proceeding as rapidly as possible with both the seaway and the power phases of the projects. We agreed completely that the best way to proceed was through joint construc- tion under the 1941 Agreement. We also agreed that the Canadian alternative proposal for constructing the seaway by the Canadian Government is feasible, and that if an early commencement of joint development under the 1 94 1 Agreement is not authorized, the seaway and power works should proceed as the Canadians suggest. Subsequently, on December 21, 1951, the Canadian Parliament authorized the estab- lishment of a St. Lawrence Seaway Author- ity empowered to cooperate with the United States in constructing the seaway under the 1 94 1 Agreement. Thus, the Canadians are prepared to proceed immediately with the seaway if the Congress approves that Agree- ment. Furthermore, in the event the United States does not elect to proceed with joint completion of the seaway under the 1941 Agreement, Canada's Seaway Authority is empowered to construct all the navigation works required to complete the seaway from Lake Erie to Montreal, at present the head of deep-draft ocean navigation on the St. Lawrence River. Under the 1941 Agreement, certain locks and canals would be built on the United States side of the St. Lawrence River. If 55-672-^66- -12 125 [23] Jan. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents Canada builds the seaway by itself, all locks and canals would, of course, be built on the Canadian side. Another Act passed by the Canadian Parliament in December provides for the development of power in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River, to be undertaken by the Province of Ontario in association with an appropriate agency in the United States. Thus the Canadians are prepared to proceed immediately with the power works also, either under the 1941 Agreement — a clearly preferable method — or as part of the Canadian alternative pro- posal. Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, an International Joint Commission, composed of three members each from the United States and Canada, was established to review and approve water resource de- velopment projects which materially affect the level or flow of boundary waters, when such projects are not otherwise provided for by special agreement. In a note from the Canadian Ambassador to the Secretary of State on January n, 1952, the Canadian Government officially informed our Govern- ment of the recent Canadian legislation, and requested our cooperation in preparing ap- propriate applications to the International Joint Commission. In response to this note, the Secretary of State informed the Canadian Ambassador that the United States Government hopes that the Congress will soon approve the 1941 Agreement. At the same time, in order that there may be a minimum of delay in the construction of the project in the event the Congress does not approve the 1941 Agree- ment at an early date, we agreed to cooperate with the Canadians in advance preparations for presenting the matter to the International Joint Commission. Copies of these notes are attached to this message for the information of the Congress. This is the situation as it now stands. It is a very different situation from that which the Congress has previously con- sidered. Through all the years that the St. Lawrence project has been a public issue in this country and in Canada — those years now numbering about 50 — the principal argu- ments have revolved around the question of whether the seaway part of the project should be constructed. This question is no longer at issue. The Canadian note of January 11 states, "The Canadian Government is pre- pared to proceed with the construction of the seaway as soon as appropriate arrangements can be made for the construction of the power phases of the St. Lawrence project as well.,, The question before the Congress, there- fore, no longer is whether the St. Lawrence seaway should be built. The question before the Congress now is whether the United States shall participate in its construction, and thus maintain joint operation and control over this development which is so important to our security and our economic progress. I strongly believe that the United States should join as a full partner with Canada in building the seaway. We should not be content to be merely a customer of Canada's for the use of the seaway after it is built. We should join in constructing the seaway, first, because it is important to our national security. Exhaustive Congressional hearings have been held on the 194 1 Agreement. Reports recommending the St. Lawrence project as one of exceptional and direct value to our security — and to Canada's — are on record be- fore the Congress from the Secretary of De- fense, the Director of Defense Mobilization, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National Se- curity Resources Board, the United States- Canadian Permanent Joint Board on De- fense, and other responsible agencies. The security value of the project has been recog- nized in the Barkley Resolution offered in the Seventy-ninth Congress, in the Vanden- berg Resolution of the Eightieth Congress, and in the Resolutions to implement the 194 1 Agreement introduced under bipartisan sponsorship by 26 Senators, and several Members of the House, during the first ses- sion of the Eighty-second Congress. Each 126 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 28 [23] of these measures has proposed Federal con- struction of the United States share of the works as the best means of safeguarding their potential benefits to the people of the United States. Competent and unbiased experts have al- ways come to the conclusion that the con- struction of a deep water channel connecting the Great Lakes with the Gulf of St. Law- rence will be of great importance to the strong and expanding transportation net- work and industrial capacity which are fun- damental to our national security. It has been shown over and over again that the cost of the relatively small amount of mate- rials and manpower needed for this project will be fully repaid in tolls and power re- ceipts; and, in addition, the project will yield savings and returns in transportation and power benefits far surpassing its cost. In recent years, a new and very important consideration has been added. The United States steel industry is now building toward an annual production of 120 million tons. At the same time, our supplies of high grade iron ore, available from open pit mining which can be readily expanded in an emer- gency, are being rapidly depleted. Such ore will shortly be available in large quantities from new discoveries in the Labrador-Que- bec area of Canada. The importance of a relatively safe inland waterway to bring this ore economically to the steel centers around the Great Lakes increases every year. Second, we should join in constructing the St. Lawrence seaway because it will be of very large significance to the commerce and the industry of our country. The seaway will be self-liquidating through the collec- tion of tolls. The great bulk of the traffic will be bound to or from the United States, but if Canada builds the seaway, Canada will set the tolls. The Canadian legislation provides that tolls shall be set high enough to repay the cost of the seaway; and, of course, Canada could keep on charging tolls even after the seaway is paid for. Under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, the tolls must be set so that Canadian and United States shippers pay the same amounts for the same kinds of cargo. Never- theless, since different kinds of cargo will be of different importance to the two countries, it is obviously of great significance for us to have an equal voice with Canada in estab- lishing the schedules of tolls on the seaway. This is no mere matter of academic in- terest. For example, millions of tons of iron ore will move through the seaway every year to the great steel manufacturing and fabri- cating plants on or near the Great Lakes. The level of tolls for that ore will be of vital importance to the economic stability and growth of our basic steel industry in the Midwest, and to the hundreds of com- panies and hundreds of thousands of workers direcdy engaged in or connected with that industry. Aside from iron ore, large amounts of agricultural products, raw ma- terials, and industrial products will move through the seaway in one direction or an- other. We can have an adequate voice in setting the tolls on all these cargoes only if we join in constructing the seaway. We should join with Canada in building the seaway, third, because it is a project along our common boundary in which both countries have a substantial interest. The long standing record of friendship and co- operation between the United States and Canada has been a remarkable example of the way in which free countries should con- duct their joint affairs. That record of friendship and cooperation is built on mutual respect and mutual responsibility. Just as the different parts of our own country should and do work together for the common wel- fare, so our two countries should work to- gether in matters that will benefit us both. In the case of the St. Lawrence project, by far the most important undertaking pro- posed along our common border, differences of opinion in the United States have long blocked a development that means a great deal to the growth and progress of Canada, as well as ourselves. We have already tres- passed on the good will of our Canadian neighbors. And meanwhile, potential navi- 127 [23] Jan. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents gation has been choked off and immense amounts of potential hydroelectric power have been lost. The St. Lawrence project will greatly benefit both Canada and the United States. We should build it together. It should be noted that the Federal Power Commission as recently as December, 1950, on consideration of an application by a State agency for a license to construct the power facilities in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River jointly with a Pro- vincial agency of Canada, found, after ex- haustive investigation and extensive public hearings, that the entire seaway and power project should be constructed by the United States jointly with Canada and so recom- mended to the Congress. For the reasons I have stated, I believe most strongly that it is in our national in- terest to participate on an equal basis with Canada in the construction, management, and control of the St. Lawrence project. The project is of great importance to our national security and our economic growth. The materials and manpower to build it are available. The funds invested in it will be repaid with interest. And in return for making a self-liquidating investment, we will gain the inestimable advantage of hav- ing an equal voice in the management and control of this key link in our national trans- portation system. I do not see how anyone can fail to recognize the common sense of participating in this project. I am fully aware that there has been strong opposition to the seaway on the part of certain railroads and port interests in our country who feel they would be adversely affected. I have always believed that this opposition overlooked the fact that economic growth and expansion in our country — which are as important to the railroads and the ports as they are to anyone else — depend on continuous development of our resources to increase our productive capacity and job opportunities. Regardless of what may have been their conclusion in the past, however, those who have previously opposed the project must now look at the matter in a new light. The project is to be built, whether or not we take part in the con- struction of the seaway. Those who have opposed the seaway in the past surely must realize that in these changed circumstances it is a plain matter of national self interest to join in its construction. No great nation has ever deliberately abandoned its interest in any of the vital waterways of the world. Indeed, the record has been the opposite: nations have vied furiously, and have often fought, over con- trol of key water gateways such as the Dar- danelles, the Suez Canal, and the Straits of Gibraltar. Even on our peaceful continent, no Con- gress in the history of this Nation has failed to recognize and to assert the joint interest of the United States in the boundary waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River, whenever the question has been presented. It seems inconceivable to me, now that this project is on the eve of accomplishment, that the Congress should allow any local or special interest to divest our country of its rightful place in the joint development of the St. Lawrence River in the interest of all the people of the United States. I strongly recommend, therefore, that the Congress prompdy enact legislation to carry out the 194 1 Agreement for joint completion of the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. Harry S. Truman note: The exchange of messages between Secre- tary of State Dean Acheson and Canadian Ambassa- dor H. H. Wrong, dated January 11, 1952, is printed in the Congressional Record (vol. 98, p. 552), and in House Document 337 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). 128 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 29 [24] 24 Remarks Upon Presenting Medals of Honor to M. Sgt. Hubert L. Lee and Sgt. Joseph C. Rodriguez, USA. January 29, 1952 I WANT to call your attention to those two citations — among the most remarkable I have ever read, and I have furnished more of these medals to these brave young men than any other President, due to the fact that the other Presidents didn't have the same situation to face that these young men and the Government of the United States have had to face. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if in our civil affairs we had fighters for the right like these two young men. I hope that their example will be enough to cause more people to take the responsibil- ity for government that they should take, and to fight for the right as these two young men fought for liberty and the welfare of the world. note: The presentation was made by the President in a ceremony in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 12 noon. The citations follow: The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, has awarded in the name of The Congress the Medal of Honor to MASTER SERGEANT HUBERT L. LEE, UNITED STATES ARMY Sergeant Lee, Infantry, United States Army, a member of Company I, 23 d Infantry Regiment, distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy near Ip-o-ri, Korea, on 1 February 1951. When his platoon was forced from its position by a numerically superior enemy force, and his platoon leader wounded, Sergeant Lee as- sumed command, regrouped the remnants of his unit, and led them in repeated assaults to regain the position. Within twenty-five yards of his objective he received a leg wound from grenade fragments, but refused assistance and continued the attack. Although forced to withdraw five times, each time he regrouped his remaining men and renewed the assault. Moving forward at the head of his small group in the fifth attempt, he was struck by an exploding grenade, knocked to the ground and seriously wounded in both legs. Still refusing as- sistance, he advanced by crawling, rising to his knees to fire, and urging his men to follow. While thus directing the final assault he was wounded a third time, by small arms fire. Persistently continuing to crawl forward he directed his men in a final and successful attack which regained the vital objective. His intrepid leadership and determination led to the destruction of eighty-three of the enemy and with- drawal of the remainder, and was a vital factor in stopping the enemy attack. Sergeant Lee's indomi- table courage, consummate valor and outstanding leadership reflect the highest credit upon himself, and are in keeping with the finest traditions of the Infantry and the United States Army. Harry S. Truman The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 nas awarded in the name of The Congress the Medal of Honor to SERGEANT JOSEPH C. RODRIGUEZ, UNITED STATES ARMY Sergeant Rodriguez (then Private First Class), Infantry, United States Army, Company F, 17th Infantry Regiment, distinguished himself by con- spicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in action against an armed enemy of the United Nations near Munye-ri, Korea, on 21 May 1951. Sergeant Rod- riguez, an assistant squad leader of the 2d Platoon, was participating in an attack against a fanatical hostile force occupying well-fortified positions on rugged commanding terrain, when his squad's ad- vance was halted within approximately sixty yards by a withering barrage of automatic weapons and small arms fire from five emplacements directly to the front and right and left flanks, together with grenades which the enemy rolled down the hill to- ward the advancing troops. Fully aware of the odds against him, Sergeant Rodriguez leaped to his feet, dashed sixty yards up the fire-swept slope, and after lobbing grenades into the first foxhole with deadly accuracy, ran around the left flank, silenced an automatic weapon with two grenades and con- tinued his whirlwind assault to the top of the peak, wiping out two more foxholes and then, reaching the right flank, he tossed grenades into the remain- ing emplacement, destroying the gun and annihilat- ing its crew. Sergeant Rodriguez' intrepid actions exacted a toll of fifteen enemy dead and, as a result I29 [24] Jan. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents of his incredible display of valor, the defense of the opposition was broken, the enemy routed, and the strategic strongpoint secured. His unflinching courage under fire and inspirational devotion to duty reflect highest credit on himself and uphold the honored traditions of the military service. Harry S. Truman 25 Letter to Admiral McCormick Designating Him Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. January 30, 1952 My dear Admiral McCormic\: The North Atlantic Treaty Nations have agreed that a Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, should now be appointed and have requested that I designate a United States officer. I have designated you for this new international command which embraces a large area under the North Adantic Treaty Organization. I am informed that the Standing Group of the North Adantic Treaty Organization will issue a directive to you concerning your re- sponsibilities and authority as the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. You are hereby assigned operational com- mand, of the United States Armed Forces assigned to the U.S. Atlantic Command, to the extent necessary for the accomplishment of your mission. You are hereby authorized to use officers and enlisted personnel of the U.S. Armed Forces and civilian employees of the U.S. Government, on your staff as you consider appropriate in numbers and grades as neces- sary. I am sending copies of this letter to the Secretary of State and to the Secretary of De- fense for their guidance. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Admiral Lynde D. McCormick, United States Navy, Washington, D.C.] 26 The President's News Conference of January 31, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I am announcing some additional members for the Committee on Government Contract Compliance1 (this is mime- ographed and you can get it as you go out) : Russell Forbes, Deputy Administrator, Gen- eral Services Administration; Michael J. Galvin, Under Secretary of Labor; Everett L. Hollis, General Counsel, Atomic Energy Commission; and John D. Small, Chair- man, Munitions Board. [2.] I think you will find for distribu- tion, when you go out, this little booklet here, "The Budget in Brief," which gives you a bird's-eye view of the budget, in lan- guage that is simple and can be understood. It is an excellent booklet, and as I said last 1 See Item 7 [1]. year, if you will study it carefully you can't be confused by the budget. That's all I have to say at this time. [3.] Q. Mr. President, a whole week has passed since we asked you whether you were going to run again. [Laughter] the president. Well, I'll tell you, I think enough questions have been asked on that, and there are so many more important things, I think we ought to drop that for the time being. When I get ready to make an announcement I will make it formally, and you will all know about it. Q. Can I ask you one thing? Have you been getting any mail on the subject? THE PRESIDENT. Not SO much. Q. Can you tell us how it runs, Mr. Presi- dent? 130 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Jan. 31 [26] the president. Well, you ought to know — it's all favorable. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, before we drop that — I don't want to intrude — but last week the Democratic State Committee in Pennsylvania asked you to seek reelection, and pledged unwavering and enthusiastic support if you should run. the president. Well, that has been done all over the country by various and sundry organizations. I think it's time to drop the subject, as I said awhile ago. Because when I get ready to make a formal announcement, I will let you all know in plenty of time so that you can get to the telephone. Q. I just thought Pennsylvania with all those wonderful votes might make a differ- ence. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, quite apart from your own decision as to when you want to make your statement as to intentions yourself, there has been a new development in the last 24 hours in which your name has been filed as a candidate in New Hampshire, as I un- derstand it, apparently without consultation with you or the national committee. the president. I saw it in the paper this morning. It will be taken off.2 Q. It will be taken off ? the president. Yes. [4.] Q. Mr. President, were cables to you from General Lowe in Korea inter- cepted? 3 THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. You are aware that he has said that they were? the president. I have no comment on 2 See Item 28. 8 Ma]. Gen. Frank E. Lowe, who spent 10 months in Korea as the President's personal representative, was quoted in the New York Times of January 26, 1952, as having said that some of his reports had not been delivered to the President. He stated that he was inclined to believe that the cablegrams had been stopped at the Pentagon. A spokesman for the Department of Defense said that there would be no comment on General Lowe's criticism of top military officials because "his remarks were a matter of opinion." what General Lowe said, and will not talk about it further, May.4 Q. Couldn't hear the question, May the president. She wanted to know some- thing about General Lowe and the cables, and I say I received every message that was ever sent from him, but there is no further comment on General Lowe. [5.] Q. Mr. President, I have been asked by my paper to ask you this question. As a bit of background — in the loyalty investi- gation program, there are 846 cases in which decisions of the departmental loyalty boards were reversed by the Loyalty Review Board. Now the question is, in changing you have issued — I believe there are two orders.5 In the first you said loyalty should be based on reasonable grounds, and in the second order you said on reasonable doubt. the president. That amended order was written at the suggestion of the Loyalty Re- view Board, and at the suggestion of the Civil Service Commission, and the letters on that, I think were released at the time Q. I haven't the president. that covers the situ- ation. Q. asked the question yet. [Laugh- ter] the president. Oh, well, go ahead. This is all background — go ahead. Q. In setting the new "reasonable doubt" standards, was it your intention that these 846 cases would be reopened automatically and without discretion, or was it your in- tention that these 846 cases would be re- viewed before the persons involved again were charged and their jobs again placed in jeopardy? the president. I would suggest that you 4 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. 5 Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947, entitled "Prescribing Procedures for the Administration of an Employees Loyalty Program in the Executive Branch of the Government" (3 CFR, 1943-1948 Comp., p. 627), and Executive Order 10241 of April 28, 1 95 1, amending the above order (3 CFR, 1949- 1953 Comp., p. 749). 131 [26] Jan. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents read the two letters I referred to, and also read the order, very carefully. [6.] Q. Mr. President, we heard last night that you had offered Ellis Arnall 6 a job. Is that so? the president. I might be in the frame of mind to give Ellis Arnall a job if he wanted it, but he did not come to see me about a job, and I don't think he wants one. I would be glad to have him in the administration if he wanted to come. [7.] Q. Mr. President, there have been newspaper stories about a stop-Kefauver drive originating around the neighborhood of the White House. Have you heard any- thing about that? [Laughter] the president. Never heard of it. I don't want to stop anybody. [ 8. ] Q. Mr. President, I beg your pardon, but I want to follow Bill's question— I won- der if taking off your name in New Hamp- shire— would that set a precedent for — if any other name were entered in any other primary, would that automatically be taken off? the pesident. No comment. Q. Mr. President, I would like to clear up one thing. If you ask them to withdraw your name, does that preclude you from being a candidate? the president. Not at all. Q. That's what I want to get clear. the president. All these primaries are just eyewash when the convention meets, as you will find out. [Laughter] Q. What was that? We didn't hear the question. the president. Ask it again. Q. When the President said that he was going to have his name withdrawn from the New Hampshire primary, I wanted to make it clear that he didn't mean that would pre- clude him from not accepting the nomina- tion. the president. Not at all. You see, all these primaries are eyewash. When it comes to the national convention meeting, it doesn't mean a thing. Q. Why are you having your name with- drawn from the thing? the president. Why there isn't any sense in my entering a primary. If I want to be nominated, I don't have to go into any primary. [Laughter] Q. The last question on this subject — I will ask it. the president. All right, Ed.7 Q. Does the two-term limitation have any weight in your thinking about whether you will run again, even though you were exempted? the president. The two-term limitation I think is all right, but you must understand that by a technicality I have only had one term. Q. But in actuality it is practically two terms. the president. Well, you can translate it any way you want to. You and the Post- Dispatch will do a good job on it, I am sure. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, this is just a technical point. Do you expect to withdraw your name in New Hampshire, by advising the man who put your name in, or the secretary of state of New Hampshire? the president. Whatever the formal man- ner is to do it. [9.] Q. Mr. President, I have a request to ask you a couple of questions THE PRESIDENT. Shoot. Q. from the Mexico (Missouri) Ledger- the president. That's a good paper. Q. which I assume doesn't have a staff correspondent here. the president. No, it's a nice country daily — very good paper, and a friend of mine. Q. From Robert M. White, the editor. First — and this is his language — as a good Democrat and a believer in the United States J See Item 31 [1]. 7 Edward A. Harris of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 132 Harry 5. Truman, 1952 Jan. 31 [26] world policy for peace, would not you con- sider it a duty to help personally in retiring Senator Kem? the president. Well, my answer to that would be that I will be glad to help retire any Republican Senator that is running. [Laughter] Q. I have got to get this down. [More laughter] the president. That's all right. He has got another question from my friend on the Mexico Ledger, and I want him to ask it. [10.] Q. The other question is, still quot- ing Mr. White — the Ledger has long advo- cated that past Presidents of the United States be made lifetime members of the United States Senate. Do you agree with this idea? the president. I made that suggestion a long time ago, and Senator Brewster intro- duced a bill to that effect in the 80th Con- gress. It didn't get anywhere in the 80th Congress. [11.] Q. Mr. President, you're not ready to nominate a successor to Judge Waring 8 in the lower district the president. I have not received his resignation as yet — his retirement request — I don't know which it is. And I can't con- sider a successor until I know for sure whether he is going to quit or not. Q. You will probably consult South Caro- lina Senators on that? the president. I will take that matter up when it comes time for me to make it. Q. You don't have any comment to make on Judge Waring's resignation? the president. No, I haven't, because I haven't received it as yet. I think he is a very great judge, however. I'll say that for your benefit. [12.] Q. Mr. President, it is true, how- ever, that Senator Brewster's bill would not give you a vote? the president. I don't know what the bill 8 Judge J. Waties Waring of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina. His retirement became effective on Feb- ruary 15, 1952. provided. If you are familiar with what is in it, whatever you say will be right. Q. My recollection is that it gave no vote. [13.] Q. Mr. President, when can we ex- pect the FCC freeze on construction of new television stations to be lifted? the president. I can't answer. I don't know. [14.] Q. Mr. President, Representative McKinnon said last Saturday that he talked to you recendy about the Bolivian tin situ- ation, and that you had told him you were working on it and hoped to have something to announce on it in the near future. Do you have anything at this time? the president. No, not at the present time. When we are ready to make the announcement, I will let you know. [15.] Q. Mr. President, not to dwell very long on a subject that we seem to be overd welling on, but Ellis Arnall in 1944 came out of the White House and said that Mr. Roosevelt definitely would run for a fourth term. Yesterday he came out and said he thought you were going to run again. We asked him whether he thought his ability as a forecaster was standing up, and he said he didn't know but he thought it might be interesting if we asked you today what you thought of him as a political prog- nosticator. [Laughter] the president. As I told you awhile ago, I am very fond of Ellis, and he is entitled to his own opinion — it is only one man's. [16.] Q. Mr. President, would you say that these various favorite son campaigns are strengthening or weakening the Demo- cratic Party? the president. I have no answer to that. [17.] Q. Mr. President, I believe for- mer President Hoover in a speech in New York Sunday9 suggested the reopening of 8 In a radio-television address over the Columbia Broadcasting System on January 27, former Presi- dent Hoover urged that the United States withdraw all of its ground forces from Europe except those needed to protect U.S. air bases outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations. The full text of Mr. Hoover's address is published in the Con- gressional Record (vol. 98, p. 518). r33 [26] Jan. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents "the great debate" on foreign policy. Do you have any comment on that? the president. No comment. [18.] Q. Mr. President, another. You haven't decided whether you will enter the senatorial primary in Missouri, I assume? the president. No, I haven't. [Laughter] That will be the best answer to White's query, you see. Q. Yes, sir. I don't want to make it Missouri day, but a bill has been introduced awaiting the Governor's signature in Mis- souri, that puts your hometown and Grand- view — where your sister lives — in the same district; and I just wondered if you plan to follow the course of John Quincy Adams and seek a House seat, by any chance? the president. Well, we will have to wait and find out whether that is necessary or not. [19.] Q. Mr. President, did you see for- mer Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson this week? the president. Yes. Q. Can you tell us what you talked about? the president. Talked about politics in West Virginia. They all talk politics when they come to see me these days. [Laugh- ter] [20.] Q. Mr. President, this week Sen- ator McCarthy attacked Philleo Nash 10 on your staff, and said he had FBI reports, and I want to know if you had any comment on that, or intend to ask Mr. Hoover11 how that could be possible? the president. It's in the same line as all the attacks that the pathological Mr. Mc- Carthy has made on all of the Government employees that he doesn't like. Q. Do you think he is telling the truth when he says he bases that speech on FBI reports? the president. Does he ever tell the truth? If he does, I haven't found it out. Q. A couple of weeks ago he attacked Mr. 10 Special Assistant in the White House Office. 11 J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Lloyd,12 also on your staff, and he said at that time he had received some information from the Loyalty Review Board. Do you think — is that subject being investigated? the president. I doubt very much whether he received any information. He doesn't need information to become a char- acter assassin. That's his business. And I'm not talking with immunity. [21.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on Governor Dewey's New York speech proposing a Pacific defense pact? 13 the president. I don't know anything about it. Explain it to me; maybe I can give you a comment. Q. Well, in his speech he favored a pact in the Pacific comparable to the North At- lantic Treaty Organization. the president. I can't comment on that because I will have to read what he had to say in detail. We have defense treaties pend- ing between us and the Philippine Islands, between us and Australia, and New Zealand, and I don't know how much further Mr. Dewey wants to go. But I will look at the thing, and maybe I can comment on it the next time we have a meeting. [22.] Q. Mr. President, I just wonder if — could we quote you direcdy on "charac- ter assassin"? the president. No. Q. On that same point, Mr. President, how about "pathological Mr. McCarthy," could that be quoted directly? the president. No. You will have to paraphrase it if you can. There are two or three definitions of that in the dictionary. [Laughter] [23.] Q. Mr. President, since you are "David D. Lloyd, Administrative Assistant to the President. 13 Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, speaking before the National Industrial Conference Board on January 24 in New York City, urged the establishment of a Pacific pact similar to the North Atlantic Treaty and the Rio Pact. The full text of the Governor's address is published in the Congres- sional Record (vol. 98, p. A405). 134 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Jan. 31 [26] going to survey another flood today, I won- der what is holding up the appointment of that commission that you were going to name for the Missouri Valley study? the president. Nothing. We are just trying to get the right people. Q. Are you having trouble, sir? the president. No. We are just about ready with it, and as soon as it is completed, it will be announced.14 And there is nothing holding it up except to be sure that we have the right people understand what flood control means, especially in these two great valleys. [24.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the Judiciary Committee in the House decision to investigate Mr. McGrath and the Justice Department? the president. That's their privilege. They can investigate anybody. I would advise them to investigate themselves if they feel like it. [Laughter] [25.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to send down the nomination of the Federal Power Commission soon? the president. Just as soon as I find the man I want, I will send it down. Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility that on that Federal power commissioner- ship you might deviate a little and have a consumer representative rather than a power or hydroelectric power man? the president. Say that again, I think you misconstrued what I want. Q. I was just wondering if in naming the new Federal Power Commissioner, you might deviate a litde from past policy and select a man who represents the consumers' interests, rather than the president. I don't think I have ever appointed anybody to any commission that I did not think represented the public at large. [26.] Q. How about the Director of the TVA, Mr. President, anything on that? the president. I have one in mind, and as 14 See Item 32. soon as he is able to take the position I will announce him to you. [27.] Q. Mr. President, there was a story that you offered Robert Patterson 15 the job of Attorney General. That came out of New York. Is that true or not? the president. No, it is not. [28.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report that you have urged the radio department of the Democratic National Committee to do everything they can to encourage as many television stations as possible to be in opera- tion by next September. Would you like to say what you think about more television stations throughout the country. the president. Oh, I think the more tele- vision stations we have the more likely we are to get the truth over to the public. And that is no reflection on anybody. Q. Would you like to say whether or not you did ask the Democratic National the president. I haven't talked to the Democratic National Committee about it at all. Q. Mr. President, do you think television is going to play a very big part in the cam- paign, regardless of who runs? the president. Yes. Television is going to play a great part in any campaign that comes up. Q. Do you think it is going to — over the years — revolutionize the type of cam- paigning? the president. No I don't. I think it is going to go along the lines of the campaign of 1948, which was mostly television. I got out where everybody could see me — and I won. [Laughter] [29.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to Ellis Arnall, I wonder if — you said you would like to have him in the administration. There have been reports that he asked for the so-called clean-up job. Could you tell us about that? the president. No, that isn't true. That isn't true. When I get ready to make the 15 Former Secretary of War. 135 [26] Jan. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents announcement about him, why you will know it in plenty of time. [3°«] Q« Mr. President, is it true that Robert Murphy will be appointed the first post-war Ambassador to Tokyo? the president. At the present time I can't make an announcement on that. [31.] Q. Mr. President, one more ap- pointment question, sir. Mike DiSalle 16 is 16 Michael V. DiSalle, Director of Price Stabiliza- tion. leaving in a week or two. Do you have a man to succeed him? THE PRESIDENT. YeS. Q. Can you give us his name, sir? the president. No, I can't do it until the time is right, then I will tell you. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- second news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 31, 1952. 27 Letter to Committee Chairmen on Determining To Increase Defense Assistance to France, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. February 5, 1952 My dear Mr. Chairman: It has become clear during the past two months that additional resources must be made available to France, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Yugoslavia during this fiscal year to permit them to meet their present and projected defense plans. Each of these countries is an important part of the defense plans of the free world; France and the United Kingdom are joined with the other countries of NATO in a common defense plan with a common strategy under the supreme commands set up by the NATO, Greece and Turkey possess military forces that have been built up and equipped with United States assistance over several years and will shortly become members of NATO, Yugoslavia occupies a vital strategic position on the flank of Western European defense. It is in the interest of our national defense and our mutual security with the other na- tions of the free world that the defense pro- grams of those countries should be carried out. I have therefore determined, pursuant to the provisions of Section ioi(b) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, that it is nec- essary for the purpose of that Act to trans- fer $478,160,000 from the appropriations granted pursuant to Section 101(a)(1) thereof for military assistance to Europe, to the appropriations granted pursuant to Sec- tion 101(a)(2) thereof for economic assist- ance to Europe. I am satisfied that this transfer of funds will in fact contribute more to military strength in Europe than if the same funds were to be used to procure mili- tary end-items for delivery to the countries concerned. The military effort on the part of these countries which will be made pos- sible by this transfer will be considerably larger than the amount of funds transferred. Of the amount so transferred, $300,000,- 000 will be allotted to the United Kingdom for the importation of commodities essen- tial to the maintenance of the defense effort of the United Kingdom as set forth in Mr. Harriman's letter to you of January 28, 1952; $100,000,000 will be allotted to France un- der the terms of the understanding reached with the French Government last November as reported to you in a letter from the Office of the Director for Mutual Security dated December 11, 195 1, with the counterpart funds accruing from such assistance to be used by the French Government for pro- curement of supplies for the campaign in In- dochina; and the remainder will be allotted 136 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 5 [29] to Greece, Turkey, and Yugoslavia, to assist those countries in carrying out the defense programs discussed between their govern- ments and the Government of the United States. I have made this determination upon the recommendation of the Director for Mutual Security with the concurrence of the Secre- tary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of Defense. This letter is intended to constitute the notification to your Committee required by Section ioi(b)of the Mutual Security Act of 1951. I am enclosing for the information of your Committee the recommendation I received from the Director for Mutual Security. Sincerely, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Honor- able James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman of the Senate Commit- tee on Armed Services, and the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services. The letter of W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security, and his recommendations for pro- viding military and economic assistance to the five countries were also released. For the President's statement upon signing the Mutual Security Act of 1951, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 250. 28 Letter to the Secretary of State of New Hampshire Concerning the Presidential Preference Primary. February 5, 1952 Dear Mr. Fuller: Thank you very much for your telegram concerning the Presidential Preference Pri- mary in New Hampshire. I am most grate- ful to those who signed the petitions in my behalf. It is my understanding that, in your State, the Presidential Preference Primary is purely advisory and has no relationship to the elec- tion of delegates. My statement at my press conference last week was intended to explain that such primaries do not bind the dele- gates. Not only do I not object to such pri- maries, but I have long favored a nation- wide Presidential primary, so that the voters could really choose their own candidates. However, I had thought it would be better for my name not to appear on any ballot at this time as a candidate for President until I am ready to make an announcement as to whether I shall seek reelection. But the Chairman of the Democratic National Com- mittee and many good Democrats in New Hampshire are of the opinion that my name should be left on the ballot. At their sug- gestion, therefore, I shall not ask you to take my name off the list. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Enoch D. Fuller, Secretary of State, Concord, New Hampshire] note: In his letter the President referred to Frank E. McKinney, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. For the President's previous statements on presi- dential preference primaries, see Items 7 [3], 26 [8]. 29 Remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Dinner. February 5, 1952 Mr. Commander, distinguished guests: It has been a long time since I have had the privilege of attending this dinner. When I was a Member of the United States Senate, I was able to come regularly. I am glad of the privilege to come once more, and I am 137 [29] Feb. 5 Public Papers of the Presidents sorry that I couldn't be with you all evening. But there are so many calls and things on the President, and the First Lady — she is attending a benefit for some organization here that needs a benefit — I had to help her get off to that program. This organization is quite an organization. If I am not mistaken, if there are no old Con- federates or GARs alive, this is the oldest veterans organization in existence now, isn't that correct? I became a member of it as soon as I was eligible. That was back in 19 19, as soon as I got back from overseas, and I am still a dues-paying member. I enjoyed the associations when you had the convention in Kansas City, during the i92o's I think it was, and I was the presiding judge of the county court of Jackson County — which is not a court, it is an ad- ministrative organization. The only judicial thing that that court does is to get two phy- sicians to tell the court that a fellow is men- tally unbalanced, then they declare him in- sane. In a great many instances, the custom- ers on the other side of the bench think that the court ought to go to the insane asy- lum instead of themselves; and a lot of peo- ple in the county thought that, too. But I was lucky in having a lot of good health. As I remember it — and of course now, I am bragging — I think that Kansas City con- vention was one of the finest ones you ever had. I also had some experience previous to that, in 192 1, with a Legion convention, which practically tore up the town. I'll say this for the V.F.W., they left the town in good shape, they didn't tear down any pil- lars, they didn't tear down any lampposts nor tear up the streets very much. We had a grand time. I think this is a great idea that you have, of having this dinner for those members of the Government who have been members of the Armed Forces. It is a grand thing. It takes notice of the fact that there are lots of ways for a man to display his patriotism. He can do it by making his contribution to the production effort of the country. He can do it as a part of the legislative and adminis- trative branches of the Government, and he can do it also by wearing a uniform. And when he does all three, he has really made a contribution to the welfare of the country. We are faced at the present time with a very peculiar situation. It is an emergency which is hard for people to understand, be- cause in a lot of instances it does not really touch them except when they have to pay taxes to support the situation — and then they scream like they always do when you have anything to do with taxes. But we are going through a period the con- clusion of which if we can bring it out suc- cessfully, will mean peace in the world from now on. If we are not successful, it may mean the destruction of civilization. Most of you understand that situation. Most of you appreciate what we are going through. We are faced with a situation now which we face every 4 years, in which the country has to go through a certain amount of spasms to decide on what it is going to do, and not going to do — and throw bricks and mud and all sorts of things at each other. But, in the final analysis, when the welfare of the country is at stake, everybody does his part. We have never yet been in a condition when the country as a whole does not come to the support of the Government when the very existence of the country is at stake. And I know that will happen this time, in spite of the fact that we are just going to have a lot of fun this summer. It started last night in a kind of riot over here at Georgetown University. I listened to that riot because I was trying to find out what was going on. You know, I couldn't hear a word — I couldn't hear a word. It must have been a most enthusiastic meeting. I am glad of that, because that means there is going to be quite an interest in this coming campaign this year. Maybe we will come 138 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 6 [30] out with the right result. When the time comes, I am going to try to tell you what the right result is. That is not an announce- ment. I understand that you are going to present a medal to that great ship captain who be- lieves in the ancient tradition. I think he is entitled to it. I think he earned it. And I want to congratulate this organization, and to congratulate that good captain for carry- ing out a tradition that is as old as shipping in the world is. I hope this organization will continue to be the energetic, patriotic organization that it always has been. And I am sure it will. And I hope the time will come when you will expire from old age, because there won't be any foreign wars. note: The President spoke at 9:25 p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Commander" referred to Frank C. Hilton, national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The dinner was an annual affair held to honor Members of Congress with military service records and was the occasion for the annual presentation of the Gen. Omar N. Bradley Gold Medal and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Gold Citizenship Medal. The General Bradley medal was presented in ab- sentia to Maj. Gen. William F. Dean, former com- manding general of the 24th Infantry Division, who had been a prisoner of war in North Korea since the summer of 1950. The V.F.W. medal and a certificate of merit were presented to Capt. Henrik Kurt Carlsen for his courageous actions aboard the listing Isbrandtsen Line freighter Flying Enterprise before the ship sank in the English Channel on January 10, 1952. President Truman pinned the medal on Captain Carlsen's lapel and shook his hand. 30 Statement by the President on the Death of King George VI. February 6, 1952 A WORLD personage who maintained the highest traditions of the English constitu- tional monarchy passes in the death of His Majesty King George VI. From his accession to the throne through all the ills which beset the world throughout the years of his reign — including the most disastrous war in history — he played his part nobly and with full understanding of the responsibility which was his. His heroic endurance of pain and suffering during these past few years is a true reflection of the bravery of the British people in adversity. The King was ever conscious of his obliga- tions as sovereign of a nation which through centuries has been the champion of personal liberty and those free institutions which ruthless dictators despise. He shared to the end of his reign all the hardships and austeri- ties which evil days imposed on the brave British people. In return he received from the people of the whole Commonwealth a love and devotion which went beyond the usual relationship of a King and his subjects. This relationship flowed from the kindness of the King's heart and his complete dedica- tion to those he both ruled and served. The visit of the late King and his gracious Queen to this country heightened the good relations between our two peoples. Then there followed the visit last year of Her Royal Highness, now Queen Elizabeth II. It is a commentary on present day democracy that the daughters of the King of England and the President of the United States could ex- change visits on a basis of friendship and mutual understanding and good will. My deepest sympathy goes out to the Brit- ish people. God bless Queen Elizabeth and may her father's exemplary memory provide the courage and inspiration she will need in the great responsibilities that lie before her. 139 [3i] Feb. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents 31 The President's News Conference of February 7, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I have one announcement here to make, and that is that I just sent down the name of Governor Ellis Arnall 1 to be Price Administrator, in place of Mike DiSalle.2 Q. Mr. President, you said you sent it down — already the president. Yes, it has gone. Q. When will that be released then, Mr. President? the president. I am releasing it right now. This is the first that has been said about it in the normal line. [2.] Q. Mr. President, have you given any thought to appointing a successor to Dis- trict Commissioner John Russell Young, who said he would give up the president. Yes, I have. I have given it a lot of thought. Q. Are there other candidates, sir? the president. Yes, there are. Usually a number of candidates for a job like that* Q. For a Republican — he is a Republican. Are you considering any Republicans ? the president. I haven't looked into the politics of the people under consideration — I don't know — probably I am. \Pause\ What's the matter, Smitty? 3 [3.] Q. Well, Mr. President, we are just writing that one down. I have got one here. [Laughter] The departure of Dr. Gushing from the Veterans Administration 4 has res- urrected the criticism of General Carl Gray,5 and there was a demand or a plea in the paper this morning from the American Vet- 1 Former Governor of Georgia. 2 See also Item 34. sMerriman Smith of the United Press Associa- tions. 4 Dr. E. H. Cushing, Assistant Chief Medical Director for Research and Education Service in the Veterans Administration, had just resigned. 5 Carl R. Gray, Jr., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. erans Committee, asking you to investigate and/or remove Carl Gray? the president. Yes, that is an administra- tive matter which is in Carl Gray's office. I don't know anything about it. [4.] Q. Mr. President, do you suppose the White House will be ready when Queen Juliana of The Netherlands will visit the United States April 2d? 6 the president. We sincerely hope so. I can't promise it. I had a bunch of reporters over there yesterday explaining the situation to them. I think we had a very nice time. I did. We are hoping for the best. I would like very much to have it finished. [5.] Q. Mr. President, some of us are beginning to get queries about Bill Hill- man's book about the Presidency, or about or in collaboration with you — whichever it is.7 I wonder if you could tell us anything about how it got started? the president. Bill Hillman came to see me and told me what he had in mind. And it appeared to me to be all right. I have been answering some questions for him and helping a little bit, but you will have to wait until the book comes out. I can't tell you a thing that's in it. I want you to buy one. [Laughter] Q. I understand a lot of your own writing is in there. Is that true, Mr. President? the president. I can't answer that. [6.] Q. Mr. President, there is a pub- lished report that you are making some kind of temporary arrangement to run the Re- construction Finance Corporation, and one report says you are going to run the RFC yourself. What is the situation on that, sir? the president. I could do that, you know, if I wanted to. Three very distinguished Senators were in to see me yesterday on that 6 See Items 73, 74, 78. 7 William Hillman, "Mr. President" (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1952, 253 pp.). I4O Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 7 [31] subject — the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Maybank, the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Fulbright, and the Senator from In- diana, Mr. Capehart. And we had a very nice conversation on the subject. And that Senate committee informed me that due to the fact that a House committee is investi- gating the Securities and Exchange Com- mission, they could not act on Mr. Mc- Donald's appointment.8 Now, that is the first time in my long connection with the Senate that I have ever known a Senate committee to let a House committee tell them what they ought to do. Q. Well, there is a report, sir, that you are bringing Mr. Bukowski 9 back as deputy the president. I have not had that under consideration. I am anxious to have Mr. McDonald confirmed, and until Mr. Mc- Donald is confirmed the RFC will run — you needn't worry about it — I will take care of that. Q. Will Mr. Symington10 remain there? the president. No. Mr. Symington is go- ing to Jamaica for a vacation. [7.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisen- hower was quoted the other day as saying he was opposed to Spain's admission to NATO. Are those your sentiments, too? the president. I don't know anything about General Eisenhower's statement be- cause I didn't see it. And I have never been very fond of Spain. [Laughter] Q. The answer then is affirmative, Mr. President? the president. That is my answer. I gave it to you. 8 Harry A. McDonald served as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission until Feb- ruary 26, at which time he took the oath as Ad- ministrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corpora- tion. He had received the confirmation of the United States Senate on February 25. 9 Peter I. Bukowski, former Deputy Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. 10 W. Stuart Symington's resignation from the post of Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation became effective on February 15. [8.] Q. Moving over one country, Mr. President, do you think Cavendish Cannon will be the next Ambassador to Portugal? the president. I can't answer that. Whenever I am ready Q. Is he under consideration? the president. whenever I am ready to announce that, I will let you know in plenty of time. You won't get scooped, be- cause I won't just hand it to one fellow. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, a group of Re- publicans are drafting a resolution to try to direct you to resubmit the budget in a bal- anced form. Have you any comment on that? the president. The budget has been sub- mitted and will stay just as it is. They must do a little work on that budget, and that's what hurts them. What is it? [10.] Q. Mr. President, several distin- guished Members of the Senate are organiz- ing in behalf of Senator Russell for Presi- dent. I wonder if you would vote for him on the Democratic ticket? the president. If Senator Russell is the head of the Democratic ticket this fall, of course I'll vote for him. Q. Do you think there is much likelihood of that, Mr. President? the president. You mustn't put me on the spot. [Laughter] [11.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to campaign in New Hampshire? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Will you make any speeches THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. or anything like that? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Just stand for the president. Just let the river take its course. Q. Mr. President, that phrase I remember you have used before, back home, during the reign of T. J. Pendergast " "Former leader of the Democratic Party in Kansas City, Mo. 141 fci] Feb. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. It originated in my cam- paign in 1934. Q. That's right. Does that mean gener- ally, or just in New Hampshire? the president. Generally. Q. That makes a better story. the president. That covers the whole front — the whole waterfront. Q. Mr. President, it has been — I don't know the history of that. Has this been a usual phrase in your campaigns, to let the river take its course? the president. Yes, but I sometimes put a few walls and sometimes put a dam across the river, too. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, I am a little confused, you sometimes put a few walls and what else? the president. And sometimes put a dam across the river and change its course. That has been done on several occasions. I can remember at least four campaigns that I have had to do that, and it has been a rather successful procedure up to date. Q. Any dams in prospect, Mr. President? the president. No. It keeps them from running, if it's in a fellow's way. [Laughter] Q. Well, if you have been invited, Mr. President, there is the Quoddy dam? 12 the president. I recommended that, but that won't cause any river in the United States to run our way. That is out in the ocean. Q. Well, you could inspect it, however, couldn't you? the president. Well, that would be a fine thing, I think, to inspect it. [12.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Ben- ton 13 said today that you promised to come up there and campaign for him; you prom- ised definitely to come up there and make some speeches. I wonder if you would elaborate on that? Is that part of a set plan now? the president. Well now, I will tell you this, just so you will have a clear understand- 12 Passamaquoddy tidal power project in Maine. 13 Senator William Benton of Connecticut. ing of the situation. I shall do everything I possibly can to help elect the Democratic nominee no matter who he is; and if I am invited to come to any special meetings in Connecticut, I will be glad to do what I can to help elect Senator Benton. I think he is a good Senator. [ 13.] Q. Mr. President, does your change of mind in New Hampshire constitute a dam? the president. It might. It doesn't, how- ever. [Laughter] [ 14.] Q. Mr. President, would you please tell us what you think of this bill which the Senate passed the other day, which said farmers should be penalized for harboring "wetbacks," but that their employment would not mean harboring? the president. I haven't seen the bill. It hasn't come to me for action. I can't tell you about it until I know what is in it, and as soon as I have it where I can, I will let you know exacdy what I think about it. [15.] Q. Mr. President, to get away from this metaphorical river, are you going to run for the Presidency again this year? the president. No comment. You know I told you last week that I thought we had discussed that long enough, and sometime or other I am going to make you an announce- ment that will clear the air. Q. Well sir, we thought maybe you might want to make it today? the president. No, I don't want to make it today. Q. Mr. President, is there a prospect that you might announce it before the New Hampsire primary, when your name will first be before the people? the president. What's that? I didn't understand. Q. Is there a prospect that you will make your intentions known before the vote in New Hampshire? the president. The vote in New Hamp- shire wouldn't have anything to do with my decision. [16.] Q. Mr. President, I am a litde con- 142 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 7 [31] fused on the answer on this Veterans Admin- istration. You were asked about a plea of the American Veterans Committee to investi- gate or remove Carl Gray, and I thought your answer was that that is an administra- tive matter, and I the president. The matter that caused that request is an administrative matter Q. I see. the president. in Carl Gray's office, and he is handling it, and I know nothing about it. People don't usually get any- where, asking me to fire people. [17.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Wil- liams 14 has said in the Senate today that in his opinion you have not been aggressive enough in dealing with what is called cor- ruption in the Bureau of Internal Revenue? the president. How much more aggres- sive does a man have to be when he fires those who go wrong and has some of them prosecuted? What he would like to do is have them all fired so he could get some Republicans in there, I guess. [Laughter'] He isn't going to get that done. Q. Well, he also seems to feel that Secre- tary Snyder 15 must be held responsible for these conditions — mentioning names and de- nouncing officials who condone the scan- dals the president. They have all been named, and some of them are indicted right now. Q. You do not the president. One of them has been tried and got a sentence. Q. Do you feel that Secretary Snyder is to blame in this matter at all? the president. No, I don't. Not any more to blame than you are. These things hap- pen. These things happen all the time — in banks and in businesses. Well, look at this grain that has been stolen by these grain fellows. Secretary Brannan 16 didn't have anything to do with that any more than John 14 Senator John J. Williams of Delaware. 16 John W. Snyder, Secretary of the Treasury. "Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture. Snyder had to do with the crookedness in the Internal Revenue Department. That is just a piece of foolishness in politics, that's all it is. Whatever action is necessary we will take to clean those things up. [18.] Q. On that point of the grain shortages, did you discuss with Secretary Brannan your reorganization of the Com- modity Credit Corporation or its admin- istration? the president. No, I did not. Q. You don't plan to? the president. No. The Commodity Credit Corporation is set up by the Con- gress, and I signed the bill just like I do for the Securities and Exchange Commission and Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and things of that kind. I had nothing under consideration for its reorganization. [19.] Q. Mr. President, have you de- cided who will represent you at the funeral of King George? the president. The Secretary of State. [20.] Q. Mr. President, is there any- thing you could say further about the ex- change of letters between you and Mr. Caudle? 17 the president. No. Nothing to add to it at all. Q. Mr. President, one along that line. Last December you said that sometime back you had been aware of the outside activ- ities the president. That is true. I had Q. Could you tell us how far back? the president. I don't remember. I can't remember how far back, but I had a report on him which I was having investigated. I don't make snap judgments on these things at all. As soon as I got the evidence, I let him go. Q. Could you tell us what brought it to your attention? the president. No, I can't. Can't re- member. The report is in my file some- where. I am not going to let you see it. 17Theron Lamar Caudle, former Assistant At- torney General, Tax Division. 143 [3i] Feb. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. That was the next question. the president. That's what I thought. [Laughter] [21.] Q. To clarify a point, Mr. Presi- dent, when you said you have never been very fond of Spain, you are referring to the Franco government? the president. That's right. That's right. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- third news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4:05 p.m. on Thursday, February 7, 1952. 32 Statement by the President Upon Appointing the Members of the Missouri Basin Survey Commission. February 9, 1952 I HAVE today appointed James E. Law- rence, editor of the Lincoln Star, Lincoln, Nebr., to be Chairman of the Missouri Basin Survey Commission, and Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri, to be Vice Chair- man. In addition, I have appointed the fol- lowing Members of Congress and private citizens to be members of the Commission: Senator James E. Murray of Montana Senator Milton R. Young of North Dakota Representative Wayne N. Aspinall of Colorado Representative Clifford R. Hope of Kansas Representative James W. Trimble of Ar- kansas Fred V. Heinkel, president, Missouri Farmers Association, Columbia, Mo. Kenneth Holum, farmer and member of the State legislature, Groton, S. Dak. C. T. Person, dean, School of Engineer- ing, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyo. Harry J. Peterson, executive secretary, Minnesota Association of Co-operatives, St. Paul, Minn. I am very glad to have been able to ap- point this group of distinguished citizens, each of whom will bring to the Commission special competence and experience which should be of great value in the Commission's work. In appointing the congressional Members, I have been aided by the advice of the Speaker, the Vice President, and the chairmen of the three committees in each House most directly concerned with the work of the Commission — the Committees on Public Works, Interior and Insular Af- fairs, and Agriculture. In appointing the members of the Commission from private life, I have sought men from the basin area who have an understanding of the problems the Commission will study, and who have not prejudged the issues the Commission will face. I am told there has been some objection made to the establishment of this Survey Commission by those who have a vested interest in the status quo. The occurrence of devastating floods in Kansas and Missouri last year is a sufficient answer to such short- sighted objections. Quite obviously, we need a thoroughgoing and impartial review of the plans for the Missouri basin, which will take account of the valuable work done in recent years by Federal, State, and local agencies, by private groups, and by such ex- pert bodies as the President's Water Re- sources Policy Commission. The men I have appointed will, I know, approach their task with the sole purpose of carrying out the important objective I stated when I established the Commission: to give the country their advice as to the best way to proceed to achieve an orderly, businesslike development of the resources of the Missouri basin — a development that places first things first and provides for the greatest resulting benefits for all the people of the basin and the Nation. note: See also Item 3. 144 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 11 [33] 33 Special Message to the Congress Urging Extension and Strengthening of the Defense Production Act. February 11, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: The Defense Production Act is now sched- uled to expire on June 30, 1952. That Act is essential to the defense mobilization effort of the Nation. I recommend that it be ex- tended for two years and strengthened in a number of respects. Our need for a strong Defense Production Act is perfectly clear. We are now well along in our program to create invincible defensive strength in the free world. But, in order to complete that program rapidly and effectively, we must continue to have the authority contained in the Defense Pro- duction Act. This law contains authority to channel materials for defense, to help expand essen- tial production, and to help small business make its vital contribution to the mobiliza- tion effort. This law also contains authority to stabilize prices, wages, credit and rents so inflation and high prices will not disrupt production, increase the cost of defense, and cause hardship and suffering among our people. These powers will be needed for at least two more years. We are just now entering the period of greatest strain in our mobiliza- tion effort. Since the attack on Korea, we have been building plants to turn out large amounts of planes, tanks, and other military items. And we have been rapidly increasing our output of military goods. In many cases, we are now producing equipment three or four times as fast as we were a year ago. But under the budget program now before the Congress, the peak production rates for complex military items are still ahead of us in nearly all cases. And for some items, particularly the new models of jet aircraft, we will not reach volume production until 1953 or 1954. This means that the mili- tary use of steel, copper, aluminum, alloy metals, electronic equipment and many other things will be high for many months to come — and will continue to require substan- tial diversion from less essential uses. Within the next two years, under our pres- ent plans, most of our new plants for produc- ing military equipment should be completed, and by the middle of 1954 we should have on hand the great bulk of the equipment we need. Changes in the international sit- uation or in technology, of course, could result in changes in our plans at any time, but if the situation develops as we now fore- see, it should be possible by then to reduce the military demand for many materials and supplies. Moreover, during the next two years we should be obtaining substantial results from the tremendous expansion that is now under- way in our capacity to produce minerals, metals, chemicals, power, and other indus- trial necessities. For example, we are now building plants that will allow us to raise our production of primary aluminum from 720,000 tons a year in 1950 to 1,500,000 tons a year in 1954 — and additional capacity may be needed. We are building nitrogen plants that will raise our capacity from 1,600,000 tons a year in 1950 to 2,900,000 tons in 1955. These examples could be multiplied many times. All across the face of our country new plants and factories are being built which will give us additional metals and chemicals and electric power. In addition to building plants in our coun- try, we are helping to expand the production of many materials abroad — for example, of nickel in Cuba, copper in Chile and Rho- desia, and bauxite in Jamaica. This will help to increase supplies for the whole free world, and will allow us to raise our im- ports of many materials we need from abroad. Over the next two years, therefore, we M5 [33] Feb- n Public Papers of the Presidents expect progressively to accomplish many of our military production goals, and to add progressively to our basic industrial capacity. We hope to reach a position in two or three years in which we can sustain the continu- ing amount of military production that we now expect to be necessary, and at the same time support rising living standards for our people. But in order to carry through our defense production and expansion programs, we must continue to allocate scarce supplies — as long as they remain scarce — and continue to accept curtailment in civilian production where necessary to meet defense require- ments. These facts about the nature of the defense mobilization program over the next few years, require extension of the production features of the Defense Production Act. And they also require extension of our pow- ers to combat inflation. At the present time, there are strong, con- tinuing pressures on prices in many impor- tant areas of our economy. Some prices have receded in the past year from ceiling levels. But well over half of the Nation's business today is done at prices held down by price ceilings, and many of these prices are pushing hard against their ceilings. This is true, for example, on such basic commodi- ties as metals and chemicals, industrial equipment and many foods. There are also strong upward pressures on many wages and rents. We are seeing right now how vitally im- portant it is to have firm price and rent controls if we are to have effective wage stabilization. And we are seeing how im- portant firm wage policies are if price and rent controls are to be effective. It is clear that, without the controls we have today, a great many prices — and wages and rents as well — would be much higher than they are right now. And our present control powers — seriously weakened by changes in the law last year — enable us to hold the present price level only with great difficulty where demand is large and costs are pushing up. Moreover, in addition to the pressures that face us now, there are present in the econ- omy two factors which could combine at any time this year or next to start new inflation- ary fires all through the economy. Inflam- mable materials are all around us; we must prevent the fires from breaking out. The first of these factors is the inevitable limitation on the production of consumer goods — because we have had to cut back the output of some goods, such as household ap- pliances and automobiles, and because we cannot expand rapidly the output of others, such as foods. The second factor is the ex- istence of very large reserves of purchasing power, and of very high personal and busi- ness incomes. This potential purchasing power could turn into a sudden flood of de- mand. If businessmen and consumers were to throw their funds into a competition for the limited supply of goods, the result would be tremendous new pressures on prices. Only strong controls can give businessmen and consumers assurance that prices will not be allowed to get out of hand, and that there is no need for panic buying. And only strong controls could stop the deadly spiral of inflation if a renewed wave of spending were touched off. We have had two dramatic illustrations of what can happen when consumers — and businessmen — go on a buying spree. Right after the invasion of Korea, and again in the late fall of that year, after the interven- tion of the Chinese communists, consumers stopped saving and went into debt to buy goods. Businessmen scrambled for inven- tories. And as a result, prices skyrocketed. The whoelsale price index rose 17 percent in the seven months from June 1950 through January 1951, and the consumers price index rose 8 percent. All this occurred at a time when we were having the biggest civilian production boom in our history. There were no shortages of any kind. The economy had not even begun 146 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 11 [33] to feel the effects of the military expansion program. Now the situation has been sharply changed. Military production is high and rising, and is using large amounts of manpower and materials. Production cutbacks are in effect for many kinds of consumer goods, though fortunately not for food and clothing. At the same time, with high savings, high business profits, and 60 million people at work, there is plenty of purchasing power available if consumers and businessmen choose to step up their spending. Moreover, we face a sizeable deficit in the Federal budget, even with the revenue increases I have recommended to the Congress — a deficit which will add to inflationary pressures. Consequently, the potential pressures to- ward inflation are now greater than they were when the price upsurge took place a little more than a year ago. The reason that inflation was checked early in 195 1, and why considerable price stability was maintained during most of the year, is not that the infla- tionary danger disappeared. It is rather that the inflationary danger was counteracted and contained by tax increases, by credit controls, by price and wage stabilization, by alloca- tion measures, and by increasing the supplies of some vital lines of production. The in- flationary upsurge was halted, not by in- action, but by action. Voluntary saving by consumers, and vol- untary self-restraint by businessmen, con- tributed much to the halting of inflation. But it was the installation of price and wage controls that induced public confidence, and put an end to speculative buying based upon anticipation of higher prices. Looking at the record, it is clear that we need strong anti-inflation weapons now, just as we did a year ago. We cannot take chances with the present situation. We cannot afford to gamble. That is why I have been calling for good, strong anti-inflation laws. That is why it was so damaging last year when the Con- gress weakened the Defense Production Act instead of strengthening it. That is why it is so vital that the Act be strengthened now. Now I want to turn to the specific changes that are needed in the present law. The production features of the Act appear to be generally adequate at the present time. A few amendments are needed, two of which I should like to call specifically to the atten- tion of the Congress. First, the law now permits the Govern- ment to make a variety of loans, guarantees, and purchase commitments where essential to help expand production of critical mate- rials at home or abroad, or to develop high-cost sources of supply without forcing increases in general price ceilings. At pres- ent, the law sets a limit of 2.1 billion dollars outstanding at any one time for these pur- poses. In all probability, this will not be adequate for programs which will be needed, and I recommend that it be raised to 3 bil- lion dollars. Second, a legislative "rider" was included in the Act last year which unnecessarily re- stricted imports of certain agricultural com- modities. This rider, the so-called "cheese" amendment, needs to be repealed quickly. Otherwise, the friendly countries who are being hurt by this amendment may re- taliate— as they have a right to do — against American exports of apples, tobacco and other products. So much for the production side of the present law. On the anti-inflation side, a great deal more needs to be done. First of all, I renew my urgent recom- mendation that the Congress repeal last year's three principal weakening amend- ments to our price control authority. These amendments are the Capehart amendment, the Herlong amendment, and the Butler- Hope amendment. All these amendments are bad legislation. All of them are hurting us in the fight against inflation. Each gives special treatment to certain favored groups — lightening their 147 [33] Feb. ii Public Papers of the Presidents share of the mobilization burden — while saddling a disproportionately heavy burden on the rest of the public, both as consumers and as taxpayers. By far the worst and most damaging pro- vision in the present law is the Capehart amendment. This allows manufacturers and processors to demand and get price ceilings high enough to cover all cost increases in- curred between the Korean outbreak and July 26, 195 1. Though plausible on the sur- face, this provision in fact disrupts effective price control. Costs and prices obviously do have a relationship one to another. Price increases are sometimes necessary to com- pensate for cost increases. But it is absurd to conclude from this that every cost increase has to be translated in its entirety into in- creased prices, regardless of whether they are needed. Our economy never did, and never should, operate on a "cost-plus" basis. By tech- nological progress and increased productiv- ity and by changes in the volume of produc- tion, American business has often been able to hold the price line or even to cut prices in the face of increasing costs. This is a fact of our economic life, and one of the sources of strength of the American economy. It is true, of course, that price ceilings cannot be maintained without reference to costs, and cost increases cannot be disre- garded. That was true before the Cape- hart amendment was enacted and will be true after it is repealed. Other provisions of the law require that prices be generally fair and equitable and that due weight be given to cost increases. Our stabilization agencies have long since adopted the principle that if an industry's rising costs are eating too far into profits, the industry is entitled to reasonable price relief. But there is no reason whatever why there should be an automatic pass-through of costs so long as sellers are making ample profits. Yet this disastrous notion of an automatic pass-through is the central — and fatal — idea behind the Capehart amendment. All the amendment requires is for sellers to show cost increases occurring before July 26th and higher price ceilings are theirs for the asking. This is not price control, but rather a form of built-in inflation. It has prices going up when they should be held down. Let me give some examples of the results of this amendment. One large and highly profitable metal manufacturing company was scheduled, under the previous law, for price reductions amounting to almost two million dollars. That decrease would have been fully fair and equitable to all concerned, protecting the interests of both the company and its customers. Instead, under the Cape- hart amendment, this company was able to push up its ceiling prices by 7.5 million dol- lars. Another company that produces vac- uum cleaners was scheduled for a 2 percent price reduction; instead it got a 3 percent increase. A producer of gas ranges would have had a 5 percent reduction; instead the Capehart amendment gave him a 2.5 percent increase. A candy bar producer got a 15 percent increase from the Capehart amend- ment. A producer of household water soft- eners was scheduled for a 4 percent reduc- tion, but instead came out with a 5 percent increase. These are not isolated cases, they are just a few examples from among the 5,000 requests for Capehart increases already filed. This is the kind of thing I warned of last August when I urged the Congress to repeal the Capehart amendment before the damage was done. At that time, the Senate did act on a bill which would have removed the worst features of the amendment. But the Congress adjourned without taking final ac- tion and the Office of Price Stabilization had no choice but to grant Capehart increases. A great deal of damage has already been done, as a result. Much of it can never be undone. Undoubtedly, many of the Capehart in- creases now in effect could not be revoked because they have already been built into 148 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 11 [33] too many costs and prices in the various stages of the production process. Undoubt- edly, fairness would require that all firms producing similar items be accorded equal treatment on their prices, to take account of the fact that smaller companies may not have been able to gather the cost data re- quired for the Capehart increases that have already been granted to larger firms. And, of course, the higher prices required at the manufacturing and processing level by the Capehart amendment must be taken into consideration in allowing fair and equitable price ceilings all down the line from manufacturers to retailers. Thus, even after the Capehart amend- ment is repealed, its price raising effects will continue to be felt all through the economy for a long time to come. On the other hand, prompt action by the Congress would enable us to prevent the spread of Capehart increases to additional areas where they have not yet been granted and where they are not needed. And it would also give us the flexibility we need to get all ceiling prices on a fair and equitable basis. Prompt action is urgent. For Cape- hart increases are necessarily being granted all the time, and the longer remedial action is delayed, the more completely and irrev- ocably our whole price structure will be Capehartized. The price raising effects of the Capehart amendment have been compounded by the Herlong amendment. This guarantees pre- Korean percentage mark-ups to wholesalers and retailers. Naturally, this pyramids ceil- ing price increases at the manufacturing level into much bigger ceiling price increases at the consumer level. For example, when manufacturers' excise taxes were raised last fall, most wholesalers and retailers had to be permitted not merely to pass the amount of the tax on to the con- sumer, but to add on top of this a percentage of the tax as profit for themselves. The Herlong amendment actually re- quired that these sellers be allowed to charge a profit for collecting a tax from the con- sumers. Just as in the case of the Capehart amend- ment, the sellers whom the Herlong amend- ment seeks to protect have their interests well safeguarded by other provisions of the De- fense Production Act. Wholesalers and re- tailers have a right, under these other pro- visions, to obtain treatment that is fair and equitable for all concerned. If the Herlong amendment is repealed, that does not mean all percentage mark-ups will be abolished. Quite the contrary, they will be retained where they are needed to assure fair treat- ment to the sellers. But there are a number of cases where maintenance of pre-Korean percentage mark-ups under changed conditions is un- necessary to assure equitable treatment; in other cases, like the excise tax example, they are downright unconscionable. The Capehart and Herlong amendments have one thing in common. They are both aimed directly at raising prices. And they do just that. Capehart increases recently obtained by automobile manufacturers, to- gether with Herlong mark-ups for the deal- ers, will cost automobile buyers up to 400 million dollars in the coming year. The Butler-Rope amendment, on the other hand, does not directly aim at higher prices. Instead, it was intended to free certain groups — the cattle growers and the meat packers — from administrative controls which they incorrectly feared would hurt them, but which in fact gave us a most important means for assuring a fair distribution of livestock — and thus of meat — among both sellers and buyers. This amendment bans the use of slaughter- ing quotas on livestock. In periods of tight livestock supply, such as occurred last sum- mer and fall and will in all probability occur again, lack of quotas can cause chaos in meat distribution — and that's just the sort of situ- ation made to order for the black marketeer. As the law stands now, without any au- thority for quotas, the orderly distribution of 55-672h- 149 [33] Feb. ii Public Papers of the Presidents meat can be completely upset by some pack- ers grabbing up a disproportionate share of the livestock while others are squeezed out of the market. We need authority for slaughter quotas. I urge the Congress to restore it to the law, either in its original form or in the form now pending on the Senate calendar. That is the best way to make sure we have the tools we need to ensure a fair distribution of our meat supply. If the Congress acts prompdy on the Cape- hart, Herlong and Butler-Hope amend- ments— together with one or two other im- provements which will be presented by the stabilization agencies — our price control powers will be substantially stronger. By and large, they will be adequate to do that part of the anti-inflation job which price con- trols reasonably can be expected to handle. But we will still lack other anti-inflation powers needed to do a completely effective job. In particular, we need stronger controls over credit. Last year, the Congress seriously weakened the Government's powers to limit the availability of credit to finance purchases of consumer goods and real estate. In periods when supplies of goods are neces- sarily restricted, the dangers implicit in re- laxed credit controls are great. We dare not take the risks involved in a loose policy on consumer and real estate credit. The Con- gress should close this inflationary loophole by restoring full authority for flexible ad- ministration of credit controls — so that they can be expanded or contracted quickly to meet any eventuality. If these steps are taken, we will be far better equipped to keep our economy rea- sonably and effectively in balance, despite the stresses and strains inherent in our defense mobilization drive. Businessmen then — and only then — will be protected against sudden unstabilizing in- creases in their costs of operation, including their wage costs. Farmers then — and only then — will be pro- tected against a loss in real income as a re- sult of skyrocketing prices of the things they must buy for their farms and their families. Workers then — and only then — will be protected against a soaring cost of living to which their own wages might never quite catch up. I am sure I do not need to remind the Congress that what we are dealing with here are not abstract economic principles, but the welfare of men and women and families. The over-all rise in incomes and the great increase in consumer savings conceal the fact that millions of our people have suffered losses in real income, or barely held their own, over the past two years. Most people are already having trouble paying present prices. For their benefit, we should be working, not to legislate formulas for raising prices, but instead to find ways of moving prices downward, as increasing productivity and more production makes that possible. We can prevent inflation from weakening us if we have the will to do so and the cour- age to take the necessary steps. I am glad to know that the Banking and Currency Committees of both Houses of Congress are planning early hearings on the needed legislation. I earnestly hope the Congress will act as promptly as possible to extend the Defense Production Act and to strengthen it along the lines I have recom- mended. Harry S. Truman note: The President approved the Defense Produc- tion Act Amendments of 1952 on June 30, 1952 (66 Stat. 296). For his statement of July 1 on the amendments, see Item 190. 150 Harry S. Truman, 1952 34 Remarks at Dinner Honoring Michael V. DiSalle. February 13, 1952 Feb. 13 [34] I CONSIDER it a privilege to be here to- night to do honor to two wonderful men. When Mike came down here, Paul Porter and Chet Bowles and all the men who had been through hell in the Second World War discouraged Mike in every way they pos- sibly could. They told him all the mean things that had happened to them, that he could expect to go back to Ohio scalped, skinned, drawn, and quartered. But Mike fooled them. I think he has made a wonderful public servant, and that is the reason I am here tonight. And Mike didn't do his successor like Paul Porter and Chet Bowles did him; he made this position of his a bed of roses, and something very easy for an able and distinguished Governor like my friend here, who is going to succeed him. We succeeded in getting him to accept the position. I know he will do a good job, because he has never had one, in my recollection, that he did not do well. And he will do this one all right. Of course, he is succeeding a won- derful guy, and he will have to do a lot of things to put himself in the same class, but I am sure he will do it. You see, one of the most wonderful things that Mike did — and something that is very difficult here in Washington — he took the Congress into camp, and I can't do that my- self. Mike has been able to get things out of those "birds" that I can't even start to get. And that is an asset to the adminis- tration when a man can do that. And I think Ellis Arnall can do the same thing — I am sure he can. Mike, I hope you will have a wonderful time this fall in Ohio, and I hope you will succeed in helping the Democrats to retire a distinguished Senator in that State. I have known the Governor for a long time, and he is one of the finest looking men in the United States. And you know, that has great appeal to the feminine part of the population. But Mike, I want to tell you something. If you will just take this beau- tiful lady of yours along on your campaign, you will get all the men. I know from ex- perience, because I tried it in 1948 and it worked. This accomplishment that Mike has done here is really something that we ought to be very proud of. The job he has had is not a pleasant one, not a bed of roses — it's like a policeman. The life of a price controller is not a happy one. Somebody, though, has to do it. And when people find out that you are fair, and honest, and earnest, and try to do a job in the interest of all the public, they will support you no matter how much they hate to be themselves controlled. They all know that we are faced with a real emergency. One of the difficulties in getting people now to realize what a tre- mendous emergency we are faced with is because they can't realize it, due to the fact that it has not as yet personally touched the vast majority. But we are faced with a situ- ation which, if we do not meet it, can bring us into terrible disaster. My only objective, and my only hope, as, President of the United States, is peace in the world. And in order to attain that peace,, we must do the things necessary to attain it. It will cost us some money. It will cost us some sacrifices. And I hope that every one of you will inform yourselves completely with what we are faced. If you will do that, you will find that the objective at which we aim is simply peace in the world. I don't want to be in a position of having to cause the destruction of whole popula- tions. I don't want to be in the position of having to send our young men into an all- out war to be slaughtered. I want the peo- ple of the United States to realize that if they will meet this emergency as they should meet it, we won't have to do that. I am just as sure as I stand here that we 151 [34] Feb. 13 Public Papers of the Presidents can win this peace, just as we won the war, if the people of this great Republic of ours will get behind the program which we are trying to carry out. And it is not a partisan political program. I think you will find that the thing is being carried out on a bipartisan basis. I think you will find that there are just as many men in the key positions from the other party try- ing to do this job, as there are from my own. All these people have been brought here on account of their experience and ability. They haven't been brought here because they are political henchmen of mine. They are here as public servants to do the job, to keep this great Republic alive, and to keep peace in the world. I hope that all of you will give the same cooperation to the new Price Control Ad- ministrator as you have given to the last one. I hope you will all get behind the program — which is headed by Charlie Wil- son, the man who went through the Second World War in the same position in which he is now, who knows what he is doing, who knows where he is going, and who is doing one of the finest jobs that has ever been done in the history of this country. We have avoided most of the mistakes which we made at the beginning of the Second World War. Our production pro- gram is much further along over the last year and a half than it was over the 3 years in the emergency during the Second World War. For that reason I think we can attain our goal, and if we attain that goal you needn't worry about the welfare of the world. We will be facing the greatest age in history. I have said to the kids that come to see me — the Future Farmers, the Boy Scouts — that I would give anything in the world if I were a 16-year-old boy now, because then I could live to see the next 50 years. We think we have done great things in the last 50 years, but it will be nothing compared with what will be done in the next 50 years, if we escape this terrible threat of a third world war. I hope you will help us meet that situation. It is up to you. The whole people have got to be interested in this. They have got to help to meet the situation. If they will do that, we can meet it as we always have done in times past. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 9:35 p.m. at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. During his re- marks he referred to Paul A. Porter and Chester Bowles, each of whom had formerly served as Ad- ministrator of the Office of Price Administration. He also referred to Charles E. Wilson, Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization. Mr. DiSalle served as Director of Price Stabiliza- tion from December 12, 1950, through February 15, 1952. The appointment of his successor, Ellis G. Arnall, former Governor of Georgia, was confirmed by the Senate on February 18. 35 The President's News Conference of February 14, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [ 1.] I want to read you a statement here, a copy of which will be available to you when you go out. [Reading] "I have had a long and satis- factory conference with Mr. Newbold Mor- ris about his plans for carrying out his job as Special Assistant to the Attorney General. "I am directing all departments and agen- cies of the Government to cooperate fully with Mr. Morris in the performance of his duties, and to give him any information and assistance he may require, and to give the highest priority to any requests made by him. Adequate funds will be provided for the activities of Mr. Morris and his staff, and they will be given separate office space outside the Department of Justice. "I intend to see to it that Mr. Morris has access to all the information he needs that is 152 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 14 [35] in the possession of the executive branch, and the authority to examine and require tes- timony from all officers and employees of the executive branch. However, in many cases where Government employees have been subject to outside influence, the most essen- tial evidence is not in Government hands. Mr. Morris cannot conduct a thoroughgoing and effective investigation of cases such as these unless he has the power of subpoena to subpoena witnesses and documents from outside the Government. The executive branch cannot confer such power on Mr. Morris. It must be provided by statute. Accordingly, I am going to ask the Congress to give Mr. Morris the subpoena powers necessary to the proper performance of his duties. "The Attorney General wholeheartedly concurs in these recommendations and in the arrangements we are making to enable Mr. Morris to do an independent, thorough, and efficient job. "Mr. Morris will have my full support, and the full support of the Attorney General, and I intend to follow the progress of his work very closely. I hope that he will also have the full support of Congress and the public." 1 Now you can ask questions, if you like. Q. Mr. President, do the terms of that statement mean that Mr. Morris can examine income tax returns ? the president. He will have the necessary power to make whatever examinations are necessary to do the job. Q. Mr. President, did the Executive ever have subpoena powers, which this new the president. No, he never did have sub- poena powers. No, they have the subpoena powers in the courts and committees of Congress. Q. I know that, but did the Executive ever ask Congress before ^n February 20, the President signed Executive Order 10327 providing for cooperation in the New- bold Morris investigations by members of the ex- ecutive branch (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 851). See also Items 36, 44 [10], 64 [15]. the president. I don't know. I don't know, Pete.2 I haven't read that much his- tory. We want to give this man the au- thority necessary so he can do a job, so you fellows who have been charging us with a whitewash will be answered. Q. Charging us with a what? the president. Whitewash. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, could we quote you on that last statement? the president. You can't quote me at all, so you will have to take these questions and answers just as they come. I'm sorry. When I want to be quoted, I will make a public statement — a statement you can take in full. [2.] Q. Mr. President, on the subject of your being quoted — [laughter] the president. Hereitcomes! Go ahead. Q. Mr. Benjamin Browdy, the head of the Zionist Organization, came out of your office yesterday and said that you said you would make up your mind about running in 1952, and make an announcement within 10 to 15 days. Was he quoting you right? the president. Well, you know, every- body is entitled to have his say when he comes out of the President's office, but I want to tell you fellows that whenever I get ready to make an announcement I will make it to you. It won't be through a third person.3 Q. Mr. President, if you thought that run- ning would help the cause of world peace, would you run? the president. I will answer that ques^ tion when I make my announcement. Q. Mr. President, do you think the cause of world peace would be helped if you ran? the president. I couldn't hear you. Q. Just the reverse of that question the president. Well, I can't answer it. You needn't try to reverse your questions, 2 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 3 Later in the day, the White House released the text of this paragraph and the last two paragraphs in [2] as material which could be quoted directly by the press. 153 [35] Feb. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents because I am not under cross-examination. I want to say to you that I know you are very much interested in this situation. I am interested too. But we don't want to make this thing ridiculous. I have carefully and conscientiously tried to answer all your ques- tions. I always try to do that. But it seems to me that it is about time now for you to wait until I get ready to make the necessary announcement, and then you will have all the information. I don't want to confuse you. I haven't tried to confuse you. I have told you that it is a difficult decision for me to make, and that as soon as it is time for the announce- ment to be made, you will have the informa- tion promptly. So let's go to some other subject that the country is interested in and discuss that, because I have said all to you that I am going to say on this subject. And I am being kindly to you, and friendly to you. It is not in any spirit of not wanting to cooperate with you. But I am not ready to make an announcement. And when I get ready, you shall have it. [3.] Q. Mr. President, this is a question on your security order. The AEC and the Civil Aeronautics Administration have is- sued about 12,000 colored maps showing air spaces all over the country. They are used for the purpose of keeping pilots from going over various atomic energy plants. The Minneapolis Tribune has raised the point whether that is a violation of your security order, or whether those maps would give enemy bombers or pilots information that would lead them to be able to bomb the president. They would, of course. Those maps are made strictly for the use of pilots so that they will not be in danger zones. They have to be made, and they have to be in the hands of airline pilots. But it will be too bad if all those maps were in the hands of people who might be our poten- tial enemies. I would give very much to have a whole set of maps like that of a certain country with which we are all familiar. I don't suppose I will be able to get them. The people of America ought to use a little judgment, as I have told you before. This country is theirs. They don't want to see it destroyed, and they ought to do everything they possibly can in a commonsense way to keep that from happening. That's all I can say to you. Q. These maps are posted in airports, and any citizen can call up the AEC and get copies. the president. I know, and you are call- ing attention to the fact, so as to help the people who ought not to have them to get them. [4.] Q. Mr. President, is Illinois going to have anybody on the Tax Court when you fill out those vacancies down there? the president. I can't answer that. I don't do that on a State basis. I do it on a merit basis. [5.] Q. Mr. President, William Loeb, a New Hampshire publisher, has asked that I ask you a question about a telegram he sent you this week, regarding Senator McCarthy's speech this coming Saturday night. He asks if you are familiar with the man in the executive department to whom the Senator intends to refer? the president. I don't know a thing about it. McCarthy "don't" take me into his con- fidence. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, did you encour- age Stuart Symington4 to run for the Senate ? the president. I have no answer to that question. When the time comes, I will an- swer it. [7.] Q. Mr. President, speaking of Il- linois, is the appointment of the judges to fill the two vacancies in the northern Illinois district anywhere near imminent? the president. No, I think not. I sent two good names 5 down there. They were 4W. Stuart Symington's resignation as Admin- istrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation became effective on February 15, 1952. 5 On July 13, 1951, the President submitted to the Senate the names of three nominees to Federal judgeships in Illinois. One of the men, Joseph S. Perry, former Democratic State legislator and county 154 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 14 [35] turned down. I am not ready to send any more at this time. Q. Do you intend, sir, to submit new names ? the president. Sometime or other I may. I don't promise to do it. Q. Mr. President, in choosing a new judge for the Eastern District of South Carolina, would you consider a man who voted for Governor Thurmond6 instead of you? the president. If he would make a good judge, of course I would. I have done that in many instances. In fact, I appointed more judges on a bipartisan basis than most any other President since 1900. Q. Mr. President, what part of South Carolina was that? the president. Charleston. Q. Charleston. Oh, that's the Waring7 vacancy. [8.] Q. Mr. President, are you bothered by the fact that Senator Taft has reiterated the fact that he has no confidence in the Joint Chiefs of Staff? the president. No comment. Q. Mr. President, it is a fact that the Gallup Poll now shows that he is even with Eisenhower — I know you don't go for polls — is now even with Eisenhower. Is he still your favorite candidate? the president. Well, sir, I don't go much on polls, as you know. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, would you com- ment on the resignation of Frank Scofield of Austin, Texas, as Collector of the Internal Revenue ? the president. You will have to inquire of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on that. All I know is what I saw in the paper. I don't run those things in detail. I dele- gate the responsibility for running them to chairman, was confirmed without opposition. The nominations of Joseph Jerome Drucker and Cor- nelius J. Harrington, the latter a Cook County circuit court judge, were rejected by the Senate. 8 J. Strom Thurmond, former Governor of South Carolina and presidential candidate of the States' Rights Party in the 1948 election. 7 Judge J. Waties Waring whose retirement became effective on February 15, 1952. somebody else, so you talk to the Commis- sioner of Internal Revenue. Q. Mr. President, may I ask a question? the president. Sure. [10.] Q. Senator Taft has been saying that the Korean war is Truman's war — a useless war, I mean. I don't know whether there has been an effective answer on that — I wonder if you would comment on it, sir? the president. Well, the public will have to come to its own conclusion, and I have no comment specifically on what Senator Taft has to say. He is running for a nomination. He is not even a candidate. [Laughter] [Pause] My goodness! — are you fellows running out of ink? [More laughter] Q. No, we are just writing hard. the president. Good. Go ahead. [11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us how soon you expect to fill the vacancy on the Labor Relations Board? the president. Well, just as quickly as I can find the man I think is fitted to fill it. Q. Then you haven't found the man? the president. Not yet. [12.] I do want to make a comment to you. I noticed in one of the papers last night a statement by a Negro man up in Harlem, after his son had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor — it was a posthumous award. And I think that is one of the most patriotic and outstanding state- ments I have seen since I have been in poli- tics. I hope you will all read it. Q. One of the most patriotic and what, sir? the president. Outstanding. [13.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some discussion from time to time of what would happen if an armistice in Korea were achieved. I have seen a number of refer- ences that this Government has under dis- cussion— I don't like to use the word ulti- matum, but some kind of statement to the effect that if the armistice were violated, we would take retaliatory action. Can you say anything about that situation? the president. This is a very poor time, I am sorry to say, to comment on that situa- 155 [35] Feb. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents tion. We are trying to reach an agreement over there, and any comment here will only muddy the waters for the negotiators, so I can't answer the question. [14.] Q. Mr. President, back to the ref- erence to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Would you care to comment on whether you think that the makeup of the Joint Chiefs is a proper subject for discussion as a political issue ? the president. It is not. They are not political appointments, and I have the utmost confidence in them. [15.] Q. Mr. President, in case Congress does not grant statehood to Alaska, would you favor Senator Butler of Nebraska's bill, giving the people of Alaska the right to elect their own Governor? the president. Surely I would. But I think we are going to have statehood for them, and that is what they ought to have. Q. Is it the same about Hawaiian state- hood? the president. Yes. I set a precedent on that. Down in Puerto Rico I appointed the first native Puerto Rican Governor.8 Then I got a bill through the 80th Congress to give the Puerto Ricans a chance to elect their own Governor.9 Merriman Smith, United Press Associa- tions: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. That's all right, Smitty. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- fourth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:35 a-m- on Thursday, February 14, 1952. 8 On July 25, 1946, the President announced his appointment of Jesus T. Pifiero as Governor of Puerto Rico. 9 An Act to Amend the Organic Act of Puerto Rico (61 Stat. 770). 36 Special Message to the Congress Requesting That the Special Assistant to the Attorney General Be Given the Power of Subpoena. February 14, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I recommend that the Congress enact tem- porary legislation to give Mr. Newbold Morris, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, the power to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the produc- tion of documentary evidence, and the au- thority to administer oaths. Such legisla- tion is necessary to enable Mr. Morris to make a thorough and effective investigation of illegal or improper conduct in the transac- tion of Government business. Mr. Morris has been appointed Special As- sistant to the Attorney General to investigate illegal or unethical conduct by Federal offi- cers and employees, and other persons, re- lating to the performance of official Govern- ment business. Mr. Morris will also make recommendations as to actions that should be taken to punish any wrongdoers, to pro- tect the Federal Government in the future against illegal and improper acts, and to in- sure the highest standards of honesty and in- tegrity in the conduct of official Government business. The facilities of the Executive branch of the Government are being made available to assist Mr. Morris in performing his func- tions and responsibilities. He is authorized to obtain from the Executive branch such information and assistance, including papers, records and documents, as he needs to carry out his task. Officers or employees of the Executive branch assigned to Mr. Morris' staff will work under his direction and con- trol for the period of their assignment. This authority from the Executive branch, however, is not enough. Much of the nec- essary evidence will have to come from the records and testimony of persons who are not connected with the Federal Government. To do his job thoroughly, therefore, Mr. 156 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 14 [37] Morris must be able to obtain testimony and evidence from persons and organizations outside the Government. Without such testimony and evidence, Mr. Morris will be unable to make a fully effective and conclu- sive investigation. It is therefore essential that he be given the power of subpoena, the power to compel testimony by granting im- munity in appropriate cases and the power to administer oaths. Attached is a draft of a joint resolution to accomplish this purpose. I earnestly recom- mend its speedy enactment by the Congress. The powers the proposed joint resolution would confer are to be exercised by Mr. Mor- ris, as the Special Assistant to the Attorney General designated for this important task, and a limited number of his personal assist- ants. In no event, would the authority ex- tend beyond December 31, 1952. In short, the legislation requested is for a limited, specific purpose, but a very necessary one. I know that every citizen wants Mr. Mor- ris to clean up any wrong-doing there may be in the Government, and to recommend measures to safeguard against any future misconduct. He has my complete support in his important task. I urgently request the Congress to give him its support by enacting this necessary legislation. Harry S. Truman note: See also Items 35 [1], 44 [10], 64 [15]. 37 Special Message to the Congress Reporting on the Labor Disputes in the Nonferrous Metals Industry. February 14, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: Pursuant to the Labor Management Rela- tions Act, 1947, I am reporting to the Con- gress concerning the labor disputes which recently existed in the non-ferrous metals industry. The significant facts concerning the dis- putes may be summarized as follows: Approximately 100,000 workers were in- volved in the disputes, the largest proportion of whom were represented by the Interna- tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers (Ind.). Other employees were represented by the unions affiliated with the Metal Trades Department and Building Trades Department of the American Fed- eration of Labor and several Railway Brotherhoods. The companies involved in the disputes were: Anaconda Copper Min- ing Company, American Smelting and Re- fining Company, Kennecott Copper Cor- poration, Phelps Dodge Corporation, and over twenty other companies variously en- gaged in mining, smelting or refining copper or other non-ferrous metals. Under the typical pattern of bargaining in this industry, separate contracts are nego- tiated between each individual local union and plant management. "Company-wide" negotiations usually have had to be supple- mented by local negotiations, before individ- ual agreements with the local union could be put into effect. In companies dealing with a large number of local unions, how- ever, the agreements on economic matters tend to follow the same basic pattern. Moreover, in recent years the first agree- ments reached at one or another of the larger companies have sometimes been fol- lowed in major respects at other companies. The principal contracts in the industry, involving the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, expired June 30, 195 1. Appropriate notices were given, and bargaining was undertaken but no agree- ment was reached before the expiration of the contracts and the unions scheduled strikes. At the request of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the In- ternational Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers postponed its strike deadline to August 27, 1 95 1. The strike notices of the 55-672—6 157 [37] Feb. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents American Federation of Labor and Railway Brotherhood Locals were withdrawn in- definitely. During the period prior to the August 27 deadline, the Federal Mediation and Con- ciliation Service made renewed and intensive efforts to assist the various parties to reach agreement. The Service called representa- tives of the workers and the management of the Kennecott Copper Corporation into Washington for conferences. Negotiations progressed to a point where the parties were discussing an overall cost package in terms of cents per hour as the basis for settlement of all economic issues other than pensions. The union had indicated its willingness to accept an overall cost package of nineteen cents to be applied to the various economic issues, excepting pensions. The company had proposed fourteen and 85/100 cents of which seven cents would be applied as a general wage increase, the balance to be ap- plied to other economic issues. In a final effort to break the deadlock the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service recommended to these parties that their dispute be settled on the basis of an increase averaging sixteen cents per hour to be applied in part to the adjustment of such other economic matters as the parties might agree upon, this in addition to the pension proposals on which the parties had already agreed. The union expressed a willingness to accept this proposal but the company declined to do so. On August 27, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, except for a few locals which had reached agreements with their respective companies, went on strike. The American Federation of Labor and Railroad Brotherhood Unions, accord- ing to their testimony, did not strike but observed existing picket lines. As a result most of the copper and non-ferrous metal producing facilities of the country were shut down. A significant barrier to settlement was the different interpretation each party to the disputes placed upon the policies of the Wage Stabilization Board. On August 27, 195 1, in an attempt to achieve a settlement, I referred the disputes to the Wage Stabiliza- tion Board and asked that the Board inquire into the issues and report to me with its recommendations to the parties as to fair and equitable terms of settlement. The Wage Stabilization Board promptly held a public hearing, at which time the Interna- tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers stated that their men would not return to work until an agreement was reached. The other unions involved stated that none of their members were on strike but were absent from work because they were respecting existing picket lines. The Wage Stabilization Board informed the parties that while the strike continued it would not go into the merits of the disputes. On August 30, 195 1, I issued Executive Order 10283 creating a Board of Inquiry pursuant to the Labor Management Rela- tions Act. It was that Board's duty, under the law, to find the facts and report them to me. The Board was forbidden, under the law, to make any recommendations. I requested the Board to report to me on or before September 4, 195 1. The Board of Inquiry met with the parties on August 31, held a public hearing on September 1, 195 1, and filed its first report with me on September 4, 1951. That report advised me of the facts of the disputes and indicated that "Every day that this strike is prolonged constitutes a threat not only to the welfare of our domestic economy but also to our national defense." Thereupon, at my request and in accord- ance with the provisions of Section 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act, the Attorney General instituted an action and on September 5, 195 1, obtained an order in the United States District Court at Denver, Colorado, temporarily restraining the par- ties to the disputes from continuing the work stoppages. Production was resumed rapidly at all the operations involved in the disputes 158 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 14 [37] soon after the issuance of the court order on September 5. The injunction was ter- minated November 25, 195 1. The first break in the dispute, according to the Report of the Board of Inquiry on September 4, came soon after the Board first met; on August 31, 1951, the Kennecott Copper Corporation and the Union's Joint Kennecott Negotiating Committee reported to the Board that substantial agreement had been reached on the major issues in their dispute and that, if this agreement was rati- fied, work would be resumed within a few days. With the assistance of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in some instances and independendy of it in others, the various parties to the disputes renewed negotiations. Setdements were achieved in many cases prior to the expiration of the injunction. The Final Report of the Board of Inquiry dated November 5, 195 1, indicated that most of the disputes had been settled by then, including all the disputes affecting copper. The only unsettled cases were in the lead and zinc fields of Idaho and Washington, and the companies and the Union were still negotiating there. The Board had great difficulty in meeting the procedural require- ments of the Labor Management Relations Act specifying that the Board report the positions of the parties and the employers' final offers. In those instances where nego- tiations were still continuing, the Board found it impossible to include any state- ments of position or final offers because the collective bargaining situation was so fluid that the positions and offers could not be described as final. At the time the Final Report was being prepared, employers were sending by air mail amendments to those offers. The Board stated that "Since it will be a physical impossibility to include the amended offers in this report, and since the unamended offers would be meaningless for the preparation of ballots under Section 209(b) of the Act, we will not be able to include any statement of position or last offer in this report." The Board of Inquiry provided the National Labor Relations Board with all the information it had in order for that agency to conduct final offer elections where possible. In a supplement to its Final Report, the Board reported that as of November 15 set- tlements had been reached in large parts of the industry, but that disputes persisted in six operations. The supplemental report of the Board states the position of the parties and the employers final offers. The Na- tional Labor Relations Board conducted elec- tions on the final offers of eight companies and on November 23, 1951, certified the re- sults to the Department of Justice. All the disputes in the non-ferrous metals industry were ultimately settled by direct negotiation between the parties, assisted in some instances by the mediation efforts of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The key settlement was that in the Kennecott case, which took place after the Board of Inquiry was appointed but before the injunction was issued. Thereafter the cases were settled one by one, most while the injunction was in effect and a few after it was terminated. Copies of the various reports of the Board of Inquiry and of the National Labor Rela- tions Board certification of the results of the final offer elections are attached for the in- formation of the Congress. Harry S. Truman note: The text of the President's message and the reports are published in House Document 354 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). For the background of the strike in the copper and other nonferrous metals industry and the sub- sequent settlement, see 1951 volume, this series, Items 169, 204, 214, 277. 159 [38] Feb. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents 38 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting Draft of an Emergency Powers Continuation Act. February 19, 1952 My dear : I transmit herewith a draft Emergency Powers Continuation Act, recommended by the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney Gen- eral, the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, and I recommend im- mediate and favorable consideration of it by the Congress. The purpose of this draft bill is to insure the continuation of certain specific powers which the Government is exercising for the preservation of the national security. Under the language used in the statutes con- ferring these powers they exist now only because we are still technically in a state of war. The only state of war still existing between this country and others is the state of war with Japan. Accordingly, unless the Congress acts to continue these powers they will end when that state of war ends or, in some cases, within a fixed period thereafter. The consideration of this measure is a mat- ter of urgency since the Treaty of Peace with Japan has now been favorably acted on by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It will come into force, after ratification by the United States, when four countries among a group named in the Treaty ratify, in addition to Japan and the United King- dom, which have already ratified. This bill continues only the specific acts or parts of acts cited in it, some sixty in number, each of which is summarized in the enclosed explanatory memorandum. They deal with such widely varying subjects as those covered by provisions under which: (1) the President, in time of war, may as- sume control over the railroads; (2) the Government may reduce the royalties to be paid by it on articles used in the defense programs; (3) Reserve officers may be ap- pointed without peacetime limitations; and (4) members of the Armed Forces may vote for Federal officials notwithstanding absence from home. Some of the other provisions are individually of less importance, but the sixty as a whole, taken together, are very significant. Existing war-dependent au- thorities not dealt with in the bill will lapse in accordance with their terms when the state of war ends. The bill is based on an intensive study of Federal law, which took account of legisla- tion enacted up to the close of the last session of Congress and even during the present session. But a limited purpose has guided the drafting. That purpose is to deal, in this bill, only with such of the war-depend- ent authorizations now existing as should be continued in the interest of national security during a period when disturbance in world affairs makes it necessary to exer- cise unusual powers. Consequently the powers specifically dealt with in the bill — and only these — are continued only for the duration of the national emergency pro- claimed on December 16, 1950 and six months thereafter, with a provision that any or all of them may be terminated at earlier times by concurrent resolution of the Congress or by the President. The bill does not alter these powers except in one par- ticular in section i(a)(2j). It continues them as they are, and it does not deal at all with powers which existed at one time dur- ing the war but have now lapsed or been repealed. If any of these ought to be re- enacted, or if the existing provisions to be continued by the bill ought to be amended in the light of practical experience or to meet present conditions, the agencies concerned will make proposals entirely apart from this bill. To insure a full presentation of the issues to the Congress and to eliminate any legal uncertainty or litigation which might arise if it were not made perfectly clear which 160 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Feb. 20 [40] statutes are in force and which have been allowed to lapse, it has been assumed for the purpose of the bill that the conflict now going on in Korea does not constitute a state of war within the meaning of the statutes dealt with. It has also been assumed that the termination of the state of war with Japan would terminate the national emergencies proclaimed by the President in 1939 and 194 1. It is my intention, in order to elim- inate any doubt on this latter point, that the proclamation of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, after its coming into force, shall expressly terminate those emergencies. The procedures followed in drafting the bill and accompanying explanatory memo- randum are set forth more fully in the enclosed letter from the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. I hope that the Congress will enact this measure promptly so that the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Japan will not deprive the Government of powers necessary for the national security. Respectfully, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. On July 3, 1952, the President approved the Emergency Powers Continuation Act (66 Stat. 330). The Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed by the President on April 15, 1952 (see Item 95). The explanatory material and the letter to the President signed by Robert A. Lovett, Secretary of Defense, J. Howard McGrath, Attorney General, Jack Gorrie, Chairman of the National Security Resources Board, and F. J. Lawton, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, are published in House Document 368 (8 2d Cong., 2d sess.) See also Item 79. 39 Statement by the President Commending the "Crusade for Christian Citizenship." February 20, 1952 I HEARTILY commend the Christian En- deavor Movement for its "Crusade for Christian Citizenship." Indifference to civic responsibilities and duties is one of the major causes of crime and bad government and contributes to the spread of communism. You are rendering America and freedom-loving peoples of the world a tremendous service as you are alert- ing youth to their tasks and helping them to be good citizens. I hope your crusade will encourage many young men and women to make public serv- ice their career. We need fine Christian youth in the running of this country. With the rising tide of Godless material- ism it is imperative that youth and older folks as well have a vital interest in spiritual values and have faith in God. Only in this way can we hope for real brotherhood and peace. 40 Letter to James H. Doolittle Upon Establishing the President's Airport Commission. February 20, 1952 Dear Jim: For some time now, I have been seriously concerned about airplane accidents, both commercial and military, that have occurred in the take-off and landing of aircraft, es- pecially in heavily populated areas. I have been concerned about the loss of life and I have been concerned about the anxiety in some of our cities. I have decided to set up a temporary President's Airport Commis- sion to look into the problem of airport loca- tion and use. I am delighted that you are 161 [40] Feb. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents willing to serve as chairman of the Com- mission, and I hereby appoint you as such. Mr. Charles F. Home, the Administrator of Civil Aeronautics and Dr. Jerome C. Hunsaker, Head, Department of Aeronau- tical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will serve with you on the Commission. The present location of many of our major airports was determined a number of years ago when the aviation industry was new and operations were relatively limited. Also, some of the locations reflected special military requirements. Since that time both civil and military air traffic have been growing rapidly, and simultaneously our cities have been continuously spreading out toward these airports. Meanwhile, there has been great progress in the art of flying and in the development of supporting facilities. Striking advances have been made in aircraft and power plant development, in speed and service, in opera- tional control of aircraft and in their ability to operate under a wide variety of weather conditions. A common system of naviga- tion and landing aids for both civilian and military use, has been installed and is being maintained by the Federal Government on the Federal airways and at important air- ports. At the same time, the Nation's in- vestment in both civil and military airports has undergone tremendous expansion. Our present mobilization efforts have greatly speeded up the tempo of these ac- tivities, particularly in the design and pro- duction of aircraft and the construction of facilities for the military services. In view of these developments, I feel that the Nation's policy on airport location and use should be restudied. We need a study that is both objective and realistic. That is what I want your Commission to do. In undertaking this survey, several major con- siderations should be kept in mind. On the one hand, provision must be made for the safety, welfare and peace of mind of the people living in close proximity to air- ports. On the other hand, recognition must be given both to the requirements of national defense and to the importance of a progres- sive and efficient aviation industry in our national economy. In addition to these general considerations, I would like the Commission to take the following specific matters into account. 1. The Federal, State and local investment in existing civil and military airports and the factors affecting the utility of airports to adjacent communities. 2. Actions by Federal, State and local au- thorities to lessen the hazards surrounding existing civil and military airports. 3. Assignment of newly-activated military units to existing airports, with particular regard for potential hazards to the com- munities involved. 4. Site selection for new civil and military airports and the factors affecting relocation of existing airports. 5. Joint civil and military use of existing or new airports. 6. Legislation and appropriations neces- sary to carrying out appropriate policy. Because of the urgency of the problem, I hope you will be able to give me your final recommendations within ninety days. In your work, you will have the full coopera- tion of all the Executive agencies whose functions and interests relate to your assign- ment. And you will want, of course, to keep in close touch with other groups con- cerned about this problem, including the Committees of Congress, local authorities and the aviation industry. Arrangements will be made to meet the expenses of your Commission out of the Emergency Fund for the President. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. James H. Doolittle, Vice President, Shell Oil Corp., New York, N.Y.] note: The report of the President's Airport Com- mission, entitled "The Airport and Its Neighbors," is dated May 16, 1952 (Government Printing Of- fice, 1952, 1 16 pp.). See also Items 41, 155. 162 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 20 [42] 41 Memorandum Concerning the President's Airport Commission. February 20, 1952 Memorandum for the Heads of all Executive Departments and Agencies: I HAVE today appointed a temporary com- mission to formulate recommendations for me concerning the location and use of air- ports. This is a matter which concerns me very much, not only at the moment but as a long term proposition. I would like all Departments and Agencies to cooperate to the fullest extent in aiding the commission and meeting the requests for assistance which may be made by it. Harry S. Truman note: See also Items 40, 155. 42 Remarks to a Group of Methodist Ministers From Illinois. February 20, 1952 IT IS a pleasure to welcome you here on the White House lawn today. I hope the next time you come the building will be all fin- ished so that you can take a look at the inside of it. They have been working on it for about 3!/2 years now, and it is nearing com- pletion. It will not fall down this time, when it is finished. It is a great pleasure to me to meet you gentlemen, as I have done on nearly every occasion when you have been here, because with all that public which you meet, whose morals and welfare you are interested in improving, it is the thing that makes the country great. There is no other country in the world, with the possible exception of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, that has the religious privileges that we have here in this country. We have the right to think and act and believe as we please, and the vol- untary contribution which you make to the moral uplift of the country is what really makes this the greatest republic in the his- tory of the world. And it is the greatest republic in the history of the world. Our effort, and the things that we are striving for, is peace, and the welfare of every country as well as our own in the world. We have no ambitions for territory. We have no colonial ambitions. All we want to see is to see the world a peaceful place in which to live, and then to help peo- ple help themselves. That is what your missionaries have been doing ever since missionaries have been in existence, trying to help people to help them- selves. Well now, that is what the ambition of the Government of the United States is, to help people help themselves. And in that way we help ourselves, because when they are improved in their living standards, when they are improved in their moral tone, and when they are improved in their religious life, it can't do anything but be helpful to this great Republic of ours. Now, that is the ambition that we have in view, striving always for nothing but peace in the world. And with your help, and your prayers, we can get it. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:10 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 163 [43] Feb. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents 43 Remarks to the Winners of the Fifth Annual Voice of Democracy Contest. February 20, 1952 WELL, I congratulate you again. You are really making a contribution to the cause of democracy, because you not only educate yourselves but you educate some other peo- ple when you are doing this, and that is the most important thing in the world. I hope that this function will be continued indefinitely. I think this is my 5th or 6th year congratulating the winners, and it al- ways gives me a lot of pleasure, as I told them time and again. And I think that with peace in the world, which we will eventually get, the greatest age in history is ahead of us. I would give anything in the world if I were 18 instead of 68, so that I could see it. It is up to you now to make it work, and I am sure you will when the time comes. Again, I congratulate you. note: The President spoke at 12:45 P-m- in tne Rose Garden at the White House to the four win- ners of a high school essay competition on the subject: "I speak for Democracy." The students were Dwight Clark, Jr., of Fort Collins, Colo., George A. Frilot III of New Orleans, La., Mara Gay Masselink of Burlington, Iowa, and Thaddeus S. Zolkiewicz of Buffalo, N.Y. The contest was sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Broad- casters, and the Radio-Television Manufacturers Association. The schools participating represented over 1,500 communities in all 48 States, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. 44 The President's News Conference of February 20, 1952 the president. Please be seated. 1 have no special announcements to make. I will try to answer questions, however. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you heard that the House has just passed a res- olution1 demanding that you supply full and complete information on any agree- ments or commitments made to Mr. Church- ill in your January talks,2 particularly in- volving the dispatch of American troops on the seas? I just wondered the president. I don't know anything about the resolution. I can't comment on it until I do know what's in it. Officially it hasn't come to me. Q. Mr. President, would you feel, in those circumstances, that there would be any responsibility on the part of the execu- 1H. Res. 514 is printed in the Congressional Record (vol. 98, p. 1205). 2 For the joint statement of the President and Prime Minister Churchill relating to the Atlantic Command, see Item 16. tive department to respond? the president. I will have to see the res- olution before I can answer any questions in regard to it. [2.] Q. Mr. President, in talking to the Methodist ministers today,3 you made this statement: "There is no other country in the world, with the possible exception of Great Britain, Canada, and Australia" the president. Well, I left out a good many countries that should have been men- tioned. It was an accident and not inten- tional that the statement was made just the way it was. There are a lot of coun- tries in addition to the ones I named. [3.] Q. Mr. President, General Vanden- berg's term as one of your chairmen of the Joint Chiefs — he is not Chairman, but one of the Joint Chiefs — expires relatively soon. Do you intend to reappoint him? There are reports that you have had recommendations 3 Item 42. 164 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 20 [44] for that on your desk for some days. the president. It hasn't come to me yet, and he is not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Q. No sir. the president. he is the Air mem- ber of the Joint Chiefs, but when the matter comes before me, then I will tell you what I am going to do. I can't comment on it today, I'm sorry. Q. You haven't picked out a successor for him? THE PRESIDENT. No. [4.] Q. Mr. President, another ques- tion— a political question, but not the big one. [Laughter] the president. Go ahead. Q. In the District of Columbia we can't vote for President or Vice President, but we do send delegates to the National Conven- tion. the president. That's right. Q. In selecting those delegates now, we have a rather complicated machinery; only a relatively small number of residents here take part. Now, would you be in favor of an open primary for the selection of dele- gates, one that would bring out a maximum number of people the president. I am for a national presi- dential primary. That is my answer to that. Q. That would include the District? the president. That would include the District, of course. [5.] Q. Mr. President, how soon do you plan to give us that judgeship in South Carolina? 4 the president. Just as quickly as I find the man I think is fitted to fill it. Some- times it takes a little delay to get around to those things to find the right man, but I will let you know in plenty of time whenever I am ready. 4 Federal judgeship in the Eastern District of South Carolina. [6.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to accept Mr. Fitzpatrick's 5 invitation to the Harriman 6 dinner ? the president. I haven't received any such invitation. Harriman? Q. Paul Fitzpatrick invited you yesterday to the Harriman dinner on the 17th of April in New York. the president. Oh, that was a general Democratic dinner. I didn't know it was especially for Averell Harriman, but of course I would like to attend. I don't know whether I can or not. [7.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate Dis- trict Committee yesterday postponed action again on Earl Wayne Beck.7 Do you plan to leave his name in nomination? the president. Why, certainly. Q. Do you think it will be confirmed? the president. Certainly. He is as well qualified as any man that has ever held that job. [8.] Q. Mr. President, do you have in sight a successor to Millard Caldwell as Civil Defense Administrator? the president. No, I haven't. I have been trying to find somebody, because the Governor has to go back to Florida and at- tend to some of his business. He has done a wonderful job since he has been here, and I have been trying to accommodate him, but I haven't succeeded in finding a successor as yet. Q. Is there a deadline, Mr. President, on when he has to leave? the president. No, I don't think so. He wants to leave as promptly as he can. He 5 Paul Fitzpatrick, Chairman of the New York State Democratic Committee. 6W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. 7 Earl Wayne Beck of Kansas City, Mo., who had been nominated to be Recorder of Deeds for the District of Columbia on January 22. The appoint- ment was not approved, however, and on June 9 the President signed an act which provided for the appointment of the Recorder of Deeds by the Com- missioners of the District of Columbia (66 Stat. 129). 165 [44] Feb. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents has been here, I believe, more than a year longer than he agreed to stay when he first came up.8 [9.] Q. Mr. President, can you give us any estimate as to when General Eisen- hower 9 may be terminating his assignment? THE PRESIDENT. No, I Can't. [10.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on the action of the House Ju- diciary Subcommittee yesterday in deciding not to give immunity powers to Mr. Morris?10 the president. The only reason that those immunity powers were requested for Mr. Morris was to give him an opportunity to do a hangup job. I have no comment to make on the action of the House Committee. They have been very anxious to have a bang- up job done, and I tried to give him the power necessary so he could do that sort of job. There wasn't any bug under the chip, or anything of the kind. Q. What, sir? [Laughter] the president. There was not any bug under the chip, or anything of the kind. Q. Bug under the chip ? the president. That's right. [Laughter] Q. Is that the same as let the river take its course ? Q. Mr. President, would you feel that the fact that he is not going to receive those powers will prevent him from doing a hangup job? THE PRESIDENT. Yes I do. Q. Well, Mr. President, whose idea was it that he needed the immunity power? the president. Well, when you are mak- ing an investigation before a grand jury — and this is a sort of grand jury — a man who 8 On November 7, the White House released the text of Millard Caldwell's resignation, to be effective November 15, 1952, and the President's letter of acceptance. His successor as Federal Civil Defense Administrator was Val Peterson. Mr. Caldwell for- merly had served as Governor of Florida. 9 General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. 10Newbold Morris, Special Assistant to the At- torney General. See also Items 35 [1], 36, 64 [15]. comes in and testifies usually is promised immunity if it will point toward the con- viction of some criminal. It is customary in all the approaches to investigations of that kind. Q. Well, I mean, whose idea was that, that he needed it? the president. Mine. You don't have to blame anybody. [Laughter] Q. Well, Mr. President, you said that you believe the fact that he doesn't have this power now will prevent his doing a hangup job the president. I think it will hamper him in doing a hangup job. Q. Do you have any other ideas that will help him? Are you going to try to counter- act this the president. We are going to give him every help we possibly can to do a good job. That is what we want. We haven't any- thing to cover up. [11.] Q. Mr. President, while we're on the subject of congressional committees, have you any comment on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee action yesterday over- turning Senator Connally's " wishes by vot- ing open hearings on the St. Lawrence? the president. I am very happy that they voted to hold hearings on the St. Lawrence Seaway. They should hold those hearings. It is important and necessary that that proj- ect be built. [12.] Q. Mr. President, without a ques- tion, do you have anything to volunteer on your intentions ? [ Laugh ter ] the president. No comment, Tony.12 Q. I hope they are honorable. the president. Tony has a very adroit way of approaching these things. He al- ways looks at me with that innocent, poor boy look, "now Mr. President, you ought to do something for me," and I almost feel like doing it. [Laughter] Q. When we go out we will be asked 11 Senator Tom Connally of Texas, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 12 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 166 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 21 [45] if there was any political development, and I just want that for the record. the president. All right, Tony, that's all right. Q. Mr. President, since the last press con- ference there has been a rather striking dis- appearance on the part of your callers from any discussion of your future. We have gone along a couple of weeks here when everybody who came out of your office talked about it. Then "bing," it stopped. I wonder if the president. Well, I have an idea they heard the lecture that I gave this press con- ference, and they abided by it. Q. Have you done anything to stop them? the president. No, I haven't. They are always free agents when they go out of my office. I never try to gag anybody. [I3-] Q« Mn President, I want to make another try on this Churchill question. the president. Go ahead. Q. Without reference to the resolution, have any commitments been made to Great Britain on sending troops anywhere? the president. I have no comment. [Pause] Are you out of "soap"? [Laughter] Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. All right. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- fifth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, February 20, 1952. 45 Remarks at a Masonic Breakfast. February 21, 1952 Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, and Mr. Speaker: I am going to make an exception in the Speaker. The people that have been intro- duced to you this morning are the "Missouri gang." There is not a man at this table or that table, except the Speaker, that I haven't appointed to office. You have had a pretty good look at them, and there are just two Missourians among them: I thought you ought to know that and that they come from all over the United States. People some- times get some wrong impressions of the setup and the organization that runs the Government of the United States. The most powerful man in the Govern- ment of the United States, except the Presi- dent himself, is sitting right here: the Speaker of the House. And I have to be polite to him all the time. And that's not hard to do. He and I have been friends ever since I can remember meeting him, a long time ago in Texas, when he was just an ordinary Congressman; he wasn't even a chairman of a committee at that time. And I have been proud to be a friend of his, and have him for a friend of mine ever since. Now, this breakfast that Frank Land gives us once a year is one of the nicest things that happens to the President, for the simple reason that it gives him a chance to be him- self, which is not very often. The President of the United States is charged with being the most powerful Execu- tive in the world. He is the head of the most powerful nation in the world, but the Office of the President of the United States is a public relations office. He doesn't very often exercise the powers that are delegated to him in the Constitution and by the laws which he is sworn to support and defend and protect. He spends most of his time talking kindly and giving lectures to people and begging them to do what they ought to do without being begged. Those are the powers of the President. Just to give you an example, the chairman introduced the press secretary but didn't tell you what his office was. Mr. Short is the Press Secretary, and he is a native of Mis- sissippi, and he got his public relations edu- cation on the Baltimore Sun. And he is a good press secretary, and he succeeded a wonderful one, Charles G. Ross. I went to 167 [45] Feb. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents school with him. He was one of the real Missouri gang, Charlie was. And I saw the other day where the Post-Dispatch had pre- sented a picture and erected a memorial to him in Columbia, Mo., where Charlie was the dean of the School of Journalism. Now that is quite an admission for the great Post-Dispatch to make, because they are not very fond of me. And the fellow next to Mr. Short is my cor- respondence secretary, whose title Frank Land did not give. And the correspondence secretary is an indispensable man around the White House. He decides on what days to celebrate, and what messages we will send to organizations, such as this, to make them feel that the President has got a personal in- terest in them. And he is a genius at it — he makes them believe it. And John Steelman there is The Assistant to the President. He does a lot of things that the President couldn't get done if he had to do them himself. You see, the Presi- dent's day starts at 5:30 in the morning and it ends about 11 o'clock at night — and then he is not through, he begins doing a lot of things that none of you would believe he has to do. A counselor for the President is Mr. Murphy. He works with the Attorney Gen- eral and all the legal lights in the various departments. Every one of these gentle- men here who is chairman of a commission has a counselor. And it is the duty of Mr. Murphy to see that the counselors of these various organizations understand to some extent what the President is trying to do. Most of them do, some of them don't. It is Murphy's job to see that they do understand it. Then the President has an appointment secretary, who happens to be a native of the great State of Massachusetts. He was a part of the organization that helped the Commit- tee to Investigate the National Defense Pro- gram in the Second World War work suc- cessfully. He did such a good job there, that when it became necessary for me to take the oath of office as President, I brought him along to the White House to keep the door for me. And he does a remarkable job in doing that. He can make every one of you Masons believe that he is a Mason, and he can make every Knight of Columbus believe that he is a Knight of Columbus, and he can make every Knight of Pythias believe he is a Knight of Pythias. It doesn't make any difference what sort of organization comes there for entrance, Matt knows all about how to treat them, and what to do with them and whether to let them in or not. And "or not" is the most usual answer, for the simple reason that if the President saw every- body that wants to see him, he would work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and wouldn't get anything else done. And it is the duty of all these gentlemen that I have been talking about, and all these heads of these departments, and the military and naval and air aides, to see that the busi- ness of the Government is carried on in a manner that will get the best results. And it is an all day and nearly an all night job. And just between you and me and the gate- post, I like it. When a man has to work 17 hours a day, there isn't much chance of his getting into devilment, and for that reason you all won- der why I can be gay and healthy after all the bricks and stones and mud and things that are thrown my way. It is because I work all the time, and because I think I am doing something to help the people of this Nation to live better than they otherwise would live, and also because the efforts that are now being put forth are in the hope that eventually we will have a peaceful world. There isn't any reason why we shouldn't have a peaceful world. There is enough room, enough potential production in the world so that everybody in it could live reasonably well, and could love his neigh- bor and do to his neighbor as he would be done by himself. That is the fundamental basis on which I work. I believe in the Sermon on the Mount. I think it is the fundamental basis of free government. We got most of our 168 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 21 [45] laws and most of our information on how to live from that old Hebrew Testament, the first five books of Moses. And if you know your Masonic history as you should, you will find that that is the foundation of your organization, those first five books of Moses known as the Law and the Prophets. There isn't a single degree in this orga- nization that is not founded on some Scrip- tural basis. You talk about the deep dark secrets of Free Masonry, I don't know what they are, and I have had every degree that there is to offer, and I have been the Grand Master of my own State, and if there are any secrets that anybody oughtn't to know. I don't know what they are. It is merely a manner of living with your neighbor, doing to him as you would be done by yourself. Now this year is leap year, and it is a most important year in the history of the Government of the United States. I was listening to Sam Rayburn, the Speaker, talk about General Washington, what a grand man he was — and he was a great man. But do you know that when he went out of of- fice, the principal paper in the great city of Philadelphia said that they were getting rid of the worst dictator the country ever had, it was a good thing he was going to retire, and they hoped they would never see him again. They attacked him so bitterly over the Jay Treaty and over Citizen Genet, and one or two other things, that that is the rea- son he retired instead of running for a third term. It has taken 150 years to find out what the truth is, and what Jefferson actually be- lieved. They called him a Jacobin, which was the name then for a Communist. And they also called him an atheist, and I don't know what else — which turned out not to be true. Princeton University has discovered Jef- ferson, and they are going to work on him. When we get those 52 volumes that Prince- ton University is putting out, we will prob- ably know the truth — I say probably know the truth about Jefferson. Lincoln was, I think, about the most thoroughly abused man that ever was in the Presidential Office. I'll bet you could walk down the street — I'll bet you I could ask any half-dozen men in this audience who the principal speaker at Gettysburg was and you can't tell me. When Lincoln made his speech, which lasted about ^]/2 minutes, the editor of the New York Tribune and the editor of the Chicago Tribune said "the President of the United States also spoke, and made the usual ass out of himself." You didn't know that, but that is a fact. So, you see, a fellow in this Office, if he is not roundly abused, doesn't do anything. You remember what they said about old Cleveland. He was another that was thor- oughly and roundly abused, but after he was out of office for about 15 years, they said they loved him for the enemies he had made. I hope you will love me for that same reason, when the time comes. I don't like to make enemies. I like to make friends. I like to do things for peo- ple. But I like to do things that I think are right, I don't care whether anybody likes it or not. If I think it is right, I am going to do it. I appreciate this privilege of meeting you all, and I appreciate Frank Land's interest and efforts to put on this grand breakfast once a year. It is one of the things that I look forward to. A President doesn't have time to look forward to very much, not even in an election year. I hope that you gendemen who represent an organization that stands for peace and brotherhood will work as hard as you can to help attain a peace in the world that will be lasting, and that will open up for us the greatest age in the history of the world. We have here the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. If that atomic release is carried to its proper conclusion — and I am sure it will be — we are facing the great- est age in history, not for destruction but for construction. Let us work to that end, and forget about 169 [45] Feb. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents a lot of petty little things that look big today, but 50 years from now won't be any greater than the principal speaker at Gettysburg. note: The President spoke at 8:55 a.m. in the Presidential Room of the Statler Hotel in Wash- ington. In his opening words he referred to Frank Land, founder of the Order of DeMolay and chair- man of the breakfast, and Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Later the President referred to Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President, Charles G. Ross, who un- til his death on December 5, 1950, had served as Secretary to the President, William D. Hassett, Cor- respondence Secretary to the President, John R. Steel- man, The Assistant to the President, Charles S. Murphy, Special Counsel to the President, and Gor- don Dean, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. President Truman was a thirty-third degree Mason and Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the State of Missouri. 46 Remarks to a Group From the Navajo Tribal Council. February 21, 1952 IT IS a very great pleasure to receive you here this morning, and I am more than happy to receive you after what you have just said about the progress you are making in the Far West with the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes. My interest is for the welfare and the fair treatment of your people. I was being in- terviewed yesterday by a housing commis- sion, and they were discussing the terrible situation of certain minority groups in the country. They named all the minority groups but they didn't say a word about the only 100 percent Americans in the country, and that is the American Indians. My interest is in your welfare. I think that we owe a debt to your people that we never can repay. I think I have a collec- tion— a library, in fact — of stories of the great Indian leaders of the Middle West, and of the Six Nations up there, that are just as interesting as any other stories of any heroes you want to read about in the world. Now, if I can do anything to further the welfare of your people, I am here to try to do it. note: The President spoke at 12:20 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 47 Statement by the President on the Fourth Anniversary of Communist Control in Czechoslovakia. February 25, 1952 FOUR YEARS ago today the Communists seized control of the free country of Czechoslovakia. By infiltrating every im- portant branch of the government, they had strangled all sources of independent opposi- tion in that nation — all but one — the stu- dents and young people. In the last few hours of Czechoslovakia's freedom, more than 5,000 students of Charles University marched toward their President's house to plead with him to save their coun- try from the Communists. But before they could reach their destination, Communist police fired into the orderly crowd, wounding several students. February 25th should be a very special day for the young men and women of all nations. Let it serve as a symbol — a re- minder of youth's determination and will to resist, in the face of hopeless odds. But let it also serve as a warning to all people, young and old, who are so fortunate that they still have their freedom. Since February 25, 1948, the world has learned the lessons of Czechoslovakia. The world has learned that communism is ag- gressive— that communism means conquest, oppression, and slavery. Four years ago the students of Charles University taught us that we must do more 170 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 28 [49] than resist — we must be prepared to resist. We are putting this lesson of collective secu- rity into practice in Korea, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the Pa- cific defense treaties. All this we learned at the price of freedom for Czechoslovakia and other nations tem- porarily under the Communist yoke. Let us never forget our lesson. 48 Remarks Welcoming Secretaries Acheson and Snyder on Their Return From the NATO Conference in Lisbon. February 27, 1952 IT IS a very great pleasure to me this morn- ing to welcome the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury — and I have already welcomed the Secretary of De- fense— from a most successful conference. I think we have accomplished in the last few days in London, Paris, and Lisbon the things we have been working for for the last 3 or 4 years. It is indeed a high privilege of mine to congratulate the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury on the job they have accomplished. note: The President spoke at 10:35 a.m. at the Washington National Airport, following which Secretary of State Dean Acheson and Secretary of the Treasury John Snyder responded briefly. The text of the Secretaries' remarks was also released. The ninth session of the North Atlantic Council was held in Lisbon, Portugal, from February 20 to February 25, 1952. The representatives from the United States to the Council, in addition to Secretaries Acheson and Snyder, were Robert A. Lovett, Secretary of Defense, and W. Averell Har- riman, Director for Mutual Security. See also Item 49 [17]. 49 The President's News Conference of February 28, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I asked Mr. Paul Walker to be Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and I am sending down the name of Robert T. Hartley to fill the vacancy. Q. Would you spell his last name, please, sir? the president. B-a-r-t-1-e-y. Q. B-a-r-t? THE PRESIDENT. 1-e-y. Q. Do you know where he is from? the president. Texas, I guess. Yes, he comes from Bonham, Tex. Q. Bonham? the president. Yes. Q. A son-in-law of the Speaker,1 is he, sir? the president. That's right Q. Nephew. [Laughter] Q. Nephew, isn't it? the president. He's a nephew — I guess. Q. I had forgotten that. I would like to withdraw that. [Laughter] the president. All right — you take that out — he's a nephew. A son of the Speaker's sister.2 [2.] Q. I would like to ask a question, sir, if you have no other announcements. Have you made any progress, sir, in your search for an Ambassador to the Vatican? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Do you still intend to appoint one? the president. I will let you know when I get ready. [3.] I understand that we have some vis- 1 Speaker of the House of Representatives Sam Rayburn. 2 Mrs. Samuel E. (Meddie Bell Rayburn) Bartley. 171 [49] Feb. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents iting newspapermen who have come to Washington to see how the Government works. And another thing that intrigues me is that they are paying their own way. [Laughter] I want to congratulate you on showing that interest in how the Government works, and I hope you will have a chance to get information that you otherwise couldn't get. It is a pleasure to me to have you here this morning, and I hope you enjoy the press conference as much as I do. I am ready for questions. [4.] Q. Mr. President, we assume that you are still not ready to make any announce- ment about your political plans? the president. That's correct. Q. Well, that being so — [laughter] the president. Sixty-four dollars, please. Q. how do you account, Mr. Presi- dent, for people continuing to come out of your office — the most recent one was Chair- man Cooley 3 — and saying that you are going to announce within 2 or 3 weeks? He said that day before yesterday. He said it was a prediction, but apparently an edu- cated one. the president. I can't be responsible for what people say when they go out of my of- fice. This is a free country and they have the right to say whatever they choose. I never tell them what to say. [5.] Q. Mr. President, do you object to officials of the executive branch appearing before congressional committees where they have air coverage — television and radio? the president. I think it is better if the committee transacts its business in the man- ner in which a committee should transact its business. But that is not my affair. That is a matter which the Congress itself has to pass on. Q. Yes, sir. Did you discuss it with Speaker Rayburn before he made his de- cision ? the president. No, I did not. I heard him make the decision. He made it over the telephone in my office, but I didn't say anything to him about it. [6.] Q. Mr. President, this is only indi- rectly connected with the question. Would you be happy if Adlai Stevenson — Gover- nor Stevenson — were the nominee for the Democratic Party? I mean, do you think he would make a good President? the president. He is a very able person. He has made one of the best Governors Il- linois ever had. That is one of the best rec- ommendations a man can have for being President. Q. If you had the chore of trying to guess what — who General MacArthur 4 was for in this campaign, who would the president. No comment. I can't tell you what he is thinking about. He will tell you, I am sure, when the time comes along. [7.] Joe5 thinks maybe I ought to tell you a little something about the telephone call. A gentleman called Speaker Rayburn and asked if they could use television at the un- American activities hearing in Detroit. And the Speaker's reply — I heard that reply — was that it was against the rules of the House and he would have to rule against it. Q. Mr. President, where were you at the time of this telephone conversation? the president. I was sitting at my desk, and Sam Rayburn was sitting right beside me. Q. How did the man happen to call Speaker Rayburn when he was with you? the president. We had the Big Four meet- ing, and it was an emergency call. We are always polite in the White House. [Laugh- ter] Q. Sir, on that subject, I think you said that you think it was better that they testify the way they ought to — or that committee meetings be held the way they ought to. I, at least, got the implication there that 3 Representative Harold D. Cooley of North Caro- lina, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. 4 General of the Army Douglas MacArthur. 5 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. 172 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Feb. 28 [49] you thought they should not be before tele- vision the president. I didn't make any such implication. That is the business of the Congress itself to make that decision. I can't make it for them. I wouldn't try to influence them in making it. I conducted a lot of committee hearings down there, though, and we didn't make a sideshow of them. Q. Mr. President, my original question stayed away from the House jurisdiction. I asked if you objected to your executive offi- cials appearing before television and radio. the president. I never object to any of my officials appearing before congressional committees. Q. Including radio and television? the president. I didn't want to include anything. I just answered the question. Q. Mr. President, our ex-colleague, Sena- tor Moody, 6 in Detroit — I believe it was the day this all broke — stated that he had called Speaker Rayburn and got him at the White House. Is that the president. He was on the other end of the telephone. [Laughter'] May,7 aren't you satisfied ? Mrs. Craig: No sir, because my original question — which I thought about very care- fully, to close all loopholes — stayed away from the the president. I appreciate that. That's perfectly correct. Mrs. Craig: the congressional juris- diction. the president. That's perfectly correct. Mrs. Craig: I thought it stayed absolutely in your own attitude toward your officials appearing before congressional committees with air coverage the president. I don't think you ought to put that "with air coverage" in there. Whenever they have to appear or are in- vited to appear before congressional com- 6 Senator Blair Moody of Michigan, former Wash- ington correspondent for the Detroit News. 7 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. mittees, they appear. And it is up to the Congress itself to decide on how the mecha- nism of the committee shall be run. Q. And you would make no objection the president. I never have. Q. on what they wish to do? the president. I never have. [8.] Q. Mr. President, Senator O'Ma- honey saw you this morning about the prospects of statehood for Alaska and Hawaii. Could you tell us anything about the results of that talk? the president. The fight is still on. When I start anything I never give up until the last "dog" dies. [Laughter] Q. Are you going to take some moves today that may help statehood for them? the president. I hope so. I hope they will. Q. Can you tell us what you will do? the president. No. Q. Mr. President, Senator O'Mahoney told us that he was enlisted in that fight for the duration for both Hawaii and Alaska the president. That is correct. Q. and that he would oppose any attempt to sidetrack the Hawaiian bill with another bill until they dispose of that. the president. That is a matter for the Congress to decide on itself. What Senator O'Mahoney and I were discussing was the probability of a reconsideration of their vote by which the Alaska bill was referred back to the committee, and he is working on that now. But that is a matter for senatorial strategy. It is not my business. [9.] Q. Mr." President, the situation in Indochina seems to be deteriorating. I wonder if the free world would say to the Communists that any action in Indochina would bring about the same thing that hap- pened in Korea? the president. I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. Q. May I ask a couple of political ques- tions ? the president. Why sure. [10.] Q. This is a Pennsylvania ques- 173 [49] Feb. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents tion, which is only indirectly a question connected with the other. Richardson Dil- worth, who has just been elected district attorney on the Democratic ticket in Phila- delphia, has said that Pennsylvania will be lost for the Democrats if you are the nom- inee, sir. Is that an echo of 1948? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion, for I don't know. [11.] Q. Referring back to television, Mr. President, were you in agreement with Senator Cain of Washington in his rather strong criticism of the Kefauver commit- tee 8 telecasts ? the president. I don't join anybody in criticism of anybody else. When I get ready to criticise anybody I do it direcdy, not by implication. [Laughter] [12.] Q. Mr. President, have you done anything lately about getting Bill Oatis9 out of jail? the president. Everything is being done that can possibly be done to get Bill out of jail, and I hope they will finally get him out. Q. Can you tell us some of the things the president. No, I can't. Wouldn't do any good to tell you, because we would tell the world then. And what we are trying to do wouldn't work. [13.] Q. Mr. President, some of your friends have been reported in New Hamp- shire as being concerned about your pros- pects in the New Hampshire primary.10 Do you share that concern, sir? the president. I haven't been consulted about it in the first place. [Pause] Well, well, well! Q. Well, one more. [Laughter] 8 Senator Estes Kefauver, former Chairman of the Senate Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, had allowed the use of radio, television, and newsreel cameras dur- ing Committee hearings. 9 William N. Oatis, American Associated Press correspondent, who was arrested April 23, 1951, in Prague, Czechoslovakia, and was given a 10-year prison sentence July 4 on a charge of espionage. On May 15, 1953, he was pardoned by the Czechoslovakian Government. 10 See also Item 28. [14.] Q. Mr. President, do you foreclose the possibility that you might announce your plans in Key West? the president. I do. That is foreclosed. Q. That is foreclosed. the president. You will get the same an- swers down there that you are getting here. [Laughter] I hope we will be able to leave for Key West next Friday, if everything holds together — a week from tomorrow. [15.] Q. Mr. President, could you say again what job Robert T. Bartley gets? the president. He is a member of the Federal Communications Commission — will be appointed. Q. He takes the place of Paul Walker, is that it? the president. Walker will be made Chairman. The vacancy was caused by the resignation of Wayne Coy. Q. Well then, Bardey takes the other va- cancy, is that it? the president. He takes the vacancy on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and then I appointed Mr. Short: FCC, Mr. President. the president. I mean Federal Commu- nications Commission. There are so many of them, we get mixed up sometimes. [16.] Q. Mr. President, just to clarify my thinking — [Laughter] the president. All right. Q. you are not going to make a de- cision or announcement until after you get back from Key West? the president. That's the program. That's right. Q. Might that be about a day after, Mr. President? the president. I won't tell you. When I get ready to make it, I will let you all know so you can be there. Q. Mr. President, don't you realize you are spoiling the possibility of a lot of cor- respondents going down to Key West? [Laughter] the president. Well now, I didn't spoil it. I didn't spoil it. I didn't ask the question. I don't know what we will do for amuse- 174 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Feb. 28 [50] merit when that situation is developed to the point where you have the answer. I don't think you will have a good time at the press conference. I am sure / won't have as good a time. [Laughter] [ 17.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment, sir, on the Lisbon conference and what was achieved? the president. A very excellent confer- ence, and a very successful one. Dean Ache- son will explain it fully tomorrow night over radio and television.11 11 The text of the address of Secretary of State Dean Acheson is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 26, p. 363). See also Item 48. [18.] Q. Mr. President, there is a story from the Far East that President Truman is still contemplating making a trip to Korea. Any comment on that? the president. No. I can't do that, I'm sorry. Q. Can't comment, sir, or you can't make the trip? the president. I can't make the trip. Merriman Smith, United Press Associa- tions: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. It's all right, Smitty. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- sixth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 28, 1952. 50 Remarks Recorded for Broadcast on the Occasion of the Opening of the Red Cross Campaign. February 28, 1952 My fellow Americans: I want to tell you something about what the American Red Cross has been doing this past year. The Red Cross is your organization. It is relieving human distress and suffering at home and throughout the world. It is doing these things in your name, as you would want to do them yourselves, if you could. First and foremost, in the last year the Red Cross has been helping the men and women of our armed services, at home and overseas, and especially in Korea. It has provided the wounded with lifegiving blood, and aided the troubled and distressed to solve their problems. Through the Red Cross you have been standing at the side of our service men and women, giving them comfort and hope wherever they may be. In this last year the men and women of our country have given over a million pints of blood through the Red Cross. That blood has saved thousands of lives, on the battlefield and in civilian life at home. That is something to be proud of. Every single one of you who gave some of that blood has helped to save a human life. I hope you will do even better this present year, because it has been proved time and time again that blood transfusions will save human lives when nothing else can. The Red Cross has also been busy this past year in bringing relief to the victims of floods and disasters. Last summer I flew over the devastated areas of Kansas and Missouri when the floodwaters were at their height. Homes, factories, even the fields themselves were de- stroyed. In that great flood, over 24,000 families in distress were given help by the Red Cross, at a cost of nearly $14,000,000. Your contributions made this possible. Recently I flew over the floods in the Ohio River Valley, in Pennsylvania, West Vir- ginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. The flood damage was considerable, but thanks to our flood control system in that area, it was nothing like what it might have been. There, along the Ohio, as in Kansas and Missouri, the Red Cross has been on the spot, helping people. Red Cross workers helped to evacuate over 1,500 families as the waters rose, and set up many Red Cross centers to care for the homeless and the hungry. 175 [50] Feb. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents The Red Cross was there, as your repre- sentative, helping people in trouble just as you would want to do if you had been there yourself. The heroic work of the Red Cross in time of disaster, its day-to-day service in saving lives, and its constant help to the men and women in our Armed Forces — these are the things that have made the Red Cross a liv- ing expression of our great tradition of neighbor-helping-neighbor in time of trouble. The Red Cross asks only for the resources to serve you and your neighbors. It is a great fellowship of the men and women and boys and girls of our land, voluntarily banded together to give friendly help to others in time of need. This is the cause of true brotherhood, and it deserves the participation and support of everyone. As the Red Cross volunteers begin the 1952 fund appeal, I urge you, my fellow citizens, to answer this compelling call of humanity. note: The prerecorded remarks were broadcast at 10:30 p.m. 51 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on the United States Contribution to the U.N. Children's Emergency Fund. February 29, 1952 My dear ; I am writing to urge that the Congress complete action on legislation to authorize a United States contribution of $12 million to the United Nations Children's Emergency Fund for fiscal year 1952. I ask also that the Congress take steps to authorize additional contributions of up to $12 million in fiscal year 1953. As you will recall, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted more than a year ago to extend the operation of the Chil- dren's Fund through December, 1953. For that reason, when the authorization for United States contributions to the Fund ex- pired last June 30, I requested authorization of a contribution for the current fiscal year. Legislation for that purpose passed the Sen- ate last session, but is still pending in the House. I earnestly hope that the House will join with the Senate in approving this authorization, so this Government may con- tinue to support the Children's Fund. And since the pending legislation covers only the current fiscal year, ending next June 30, I hope the Congress will add authority for ad- ditional contributions in the coming fiscal year. Only if the Congress takes these actions now will we be able to continue financial support for the Children's Fund. Only in this way can we honor the decision of the United Nations to keep this important pro- gram going until the end of 1953. I know that the Congress recognizes the good work the Children's Fund has done in the past in helping to meet urgent needs of children in many countries around the world. The Fund has directly reached at least 42 million children in 64 countries and territories. Its work is closely coordinated with that of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization and has provided a vital supplement to their programs. The Fund is now placing em- phasis on work in the less developed coun- tries, primarily to help them establish permanent programs to aid their children. At the same time, the Fund is continuing direct aid to children caught in sudden emergencies like the recent flood in the Po Valley of Italy, or the recent typhoons in the Philippines. The United States has supported the Chil- 176 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 4 [53] dren's Fund since it was first set up by the United Nations. At its recent meeting in Paris, the General Assembly of the United Nations urgentiy requested all countries to continue their support for the remainder of the Fund's existence. This gives us a real opportunity — an opportunity to help chil- dren, in many concrete, practical ways. I am confident the people of this country will want to take full advantage of that opportu- nity. I urge the Congress to act on these authorizations without delay. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. For the President's statement upon signing the Supplemental Appropriation Act, which provided a contribution from the United States for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, see Item 205. 52 Remarks to the Winners of the nth Annual Science Talent Search. February 29, 1952 I WANT to congratulate these young people on being the prizewinners in this great undertaking they are going through. The country needs them, and it is going to need them worse in the coming generation than it needs them now. And the more impor- tant science becomes, the more necessary it is to have people who know how to take advantage of the opportunity. I think you young people are faced with the greatest age in history. I am an opti- mist, and I rather think we are going to have a peaceful world over the next century, and it will be your turn some day to make that world operate. And I am more than happy to see that you are preparing yourselves for that purpose. I am glad you are here. I hope you will enjoy your visit, and that you will learn a lot about the United States and its Govern- ment and its relations with the other coun- tries in the world, which is most important for you to know. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:50 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The group included 40 young people from throughout the United States who were winners in the annual Science Talent In- stitute sponsored by the Westinghouse Corporation. 53 Letter to the Chairman, Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, Urging Action on Reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. March 4, 1952 My dear Mr. Chairman: I have been following with much interest the progress of Reorganization Plan No. i of 1952, providing for reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. I understand that your Committee has nearly completed its consideration of the plan and will soon file a report to the Senate. Approval of Plan No. i is the most im- portant step we can take to give our tax col- lecting agency an organization and a man- agement that will assure the highest integrity and efficiency . I earnestly hope your Com- mittee will take favorable action on the plan and that it will be approved by the Senate. The millions of Americans who are now preparing their tax returns are entitled to this progressive step. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable John L. McClellan, Chairman, Commit- tee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.] note: See also Items i, n, 59. 177 [54] Mar. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents 54 Address Broadcast From the Voice of America Floating Radio Transmitter Courier. March 4, 1952 Dr. Compton and members of the Cabinet of the United States, distinguished guests and friends of peace all around the world: I am speaking to you today from a ship. It is a special kind of ship, and it will per- form a very special mission. This vessel will not be armed with guns, or with any instruments of destruction. But it will be a valiant fighter in the cause of free- dom. It will carry a precious cargo — and that cargo is truth. This ship is named the Courier. It is well named, for it will be carrying a message. It will be carrying a message of hope and friendship to all those who are oppressed by tyranny; it will be carrying a message of truth and light to those who are confused by the storm of falsehood that the Communists have loosed upon the world. This vessel is a floating radio transmitter which is to broadcast the programs for the Voice of America. It will be able to move from place to place, beaming our campaign of truth to people behind the Iron Curtain whom we have thus far been unable to reach. The Courier is a small ship — it is not as big as a destroyer — but it is of tremendous significance. Its significance lies in the fact that it will carry on the fight for freedom in the field where the ultimate victory has to be won — that is in the minds of men. As the world stands today, free peoples must have strong military forces to protect themselves against aggression. But the final solution for the ills that plague the world can never lie in armies and navies and air forces. The final solution cannot be reached until all nations are willing to live together in peace. The final victory cannot be won until the truth has made all people free. There is a terrific struggle going on today to win the minds of people throughout the world. The rulers of the Kremlin are trying to make the whole world knuckle under to the godless, totalitarian creed of communism. They are busy everywhere spreading propa- ganda to stir up fear and hate and to set na- tion against nation. The free nations of the world have not yielded to the onslaught of Soviet propa- ganda. We have undertaken to answer propaganda with the truth — for we know that the truth is the best answer. To bring the truth to peoples everywhere, we are using magazines, newspapers, motion pic- tures, libraries, and information centers in all parts of the world. We must use every means to combat the propaganda of slavery. This ship is an important part of that campaign. Our arguments, no matter how good, are not going to influence people who never hear them. I will repeat that: Our arguments, no matter how good, are not going to influence people who never hear them. The purpose of this ship is to help get our message through. There is one thing I want this ship to say — over and over again — to our friends through- out the world, and especially to the people of the Soviet Union and those behind the Iron Curtain: The United States of America is working night and day to bring peace to the world. As President of the United States, I say with all my heart that we yearn for peace, and we want to work with all na- tions to secure peace. We have no quarrel with the people of the Soviet Union or with the people of any other country. For almost two centuries the people of the United States have lived at peace with the peoples of Russia and China and other coun- tries whose rulers are now assailing us. Only a decade ago, when the peoples of Russia and China were suffering under two 178 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 6 [55] of the most savage invasions in history, we came to their aid. We helped them to save their countries. I want to say to these people today, as we said then: We are your friends. There are no differences between us that cannot be setded if your rulers will turn from their senseless policy of hate and terror, and follow the principles of peace. Today the aggressive policies of your rulers are forcing us to arm to defend ourselves. But we cannot find it in our hearts to hate anyone. We cannot find it in our hearts to bear any hate against you. We know that you are suffering under oppression and per- secution. We know that if you were free to say what you really believe, you would join with us to banish the fear of war, and bring peace on earth and good will towards all men. Your government, with its newspapers and radios, may try to make you believe that the United States is a hostile country, bent on war. But that is not true. I want you to know that our highest aim is peace and friendship — and an end to the horrors of war. Wherever you may be listening to this broadcast, remember this: The people of the United States extend the hand of friendship to you across the seas. The future may look dark, but let us have faith, together, that all peoples will one day walk in the sunlight of peace and justice. note: The President spoke at 10:48 a.m. from the deck of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Courier, berthed at Pier 4, Maine Avenue SW., in Washington. His opening words referred to Wilson Compton, Administrator, U.S. International Information Ad- ministration, who was one of the speakers at the ceremony. As the President spoke, relay stations broadcast his message to listeners in all parts of the world via 37 transmitters. Immediately following the Eng- lish language broadcast, the message was translated into 45 languages for rebroadcast. 55 Special Message to the Congress on the Mutual Security Program. March 6, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I recommend that the Congress authorize the continuance of the Mutual Security Pro- gram for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953. Such action is essential to advance our pro- gram for world peace and to protect the security of the United States. The Mutual Security Program provides equipment, supplies, and technical coopera- tion to enable friendly countries to carry out military and economic programs that will bring very great returns in increasing their security and our own. In each case, the countries concerned are driving to accom- plish objectives which will bring closer to full realization our mutual goals of freedom and peace under the great principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Without some resources from us to add to their own, these objectives cannot be accomplished. My support for this program rests on four propositions: First, the plain fact is that we cannot achieve lasting security for ourselves except in association with other nations. Second, the funds provided by the United States under the Mutual Security Program are essential to the success of the common efforts we are making with other free nations for peace. Third, the funds thus invested by the United States will yield far larger returns, in terms of our own security, than if the same amount were used for our own defense establishment. Fourth, the cost of the Mutual Security Program, together with the much larger costs of our military services and other de- 179 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents fense measures, are well within our eco- nomic capacity. I do not need to review here the tragic circumstances which have compelled this Nation to undertake massive programs for national defense and for mutual security. Most of us fully understand today the grim- ness of the threat which Soviet aggression carries for the survival of civilization. Neither do I need to dwell upon the fact that all our military preparations are defen- sive preparations. We are seeking to create strength in the world sufficient to prevent aggression. We do not contemplate ex- penditures in the magnitude or of the char- acter necessary to launch aggression. These facts underline the statement which cannot be too often repeated: our objective is peace, not war. The point I do want to emphasize, for there still appear to be some people who do not recognize it, is that to achieve peace we must work together with other nations. Some people would have us withdraw to our own shores and gamble our national safety on air and naval power. A glance at some of the vital materials that go into air and naval power illustrates how self-defeat- ing this would be. Four-fifths or more of the manganese, the tin, and the chrome in a United States destroyer or jet fighter comes from outside the western hemisphere. Should we turn our back on the rest of the world, these and other precious resources, so vital to our own security, would not only be lost to us, but in all probability would be added to the military strength of the Soviet empire. Without our friends abroad, the threat of aggression would move close to our own shores. Without their armed forces, and the bases on their soil, and the raw materials from their mines and forests, our military power would be gravely hampered in its de- fense of the United States, and our whole economy would be seriously weakened. Our support and assistance for other nations, therefore, are not in the nature of charity. These are not handouts which we can care- lessly offer or withdraw without regard to the effect on our own safety. The problems of American survival would be multiplied to an incalculable extent if we had to face the Soviet threat without the support and assist- ance of other nations. The Mutual Security Program is justi- fied not only by these hard strategic and military realities. It is, in addition, the only course which fulfills our position as a world leader in the battle for freedom and the rights of man. That is the reason so many nations freely join with us in a common faith in democracy and common desire for peace. These nations are our friends, and not our satellites. As friends, they contribute to the shared wisdom and faith of the free world — a wisdom and faith on which no single nation can claim a monopoly. We must accordingly take care to treat them as friends. We must not act as though we wished to degrade them to the rank of satellites by exacting a rigid and humiliating subservience which no free nation could with dignity accept. We will never be defeated as long as we truly stand for a free partnership of free peoples. The unconquer- able power of the free world lies in the fact that loyalties are not coerced. The concrete requirements of American security compel us to a policy of interna- tional cooperation. But it would be, I be- lieve, a misrepresentation of the American people to suppose that self-interest — even wise and enlightened self-interest — is the only cause for our concern with the outside world. As a nation, we have been dedi- cated through our history to the belief that responsible men deserve a democratic gov- ernment and a free society. This belief is the essence of our way of life. We would betray our innermost convictions if today we were to flee the cause of the free peoples. 180 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [55] If through inaction we desert the cause of democracy, the democratic hope may be ex- terminated in broad areas of this earth. If we rise to our historic traditions, we can add powerful momentum to the democratic counter-offensive which inspires in the people of the world a sense of their own destiny as free men — and which will in the end burst the bonds of tyranny everywhere on earth. The pursuit of mutual security through mutual strength is thus the keystone of the broad foreign policy which the United States and other free nations have adopted as the surest road to lasting peace. The American people have steadfastly supported this foreign policy since the Second World War. Its pattern today is sharp and clear. If I were to make a brief definition of our policy, I would call it the policy of peace through collective strength. We are joined with other countries in the patient and systematic building in the free world of enough military strength to deter external communist aggression; and of eco- nomic and political and moral strength to remove internal threats of communist sub- version and point the way toward democratic progress. I wish to emphasize very strongly that all these forms of strength are necessary if we are to achieve freedom and peace. The plain and inescapable fact is that they are indivisible. Neither military strength nor economic strength nor political strength nor moral strength can do the job alone. Military strength is the first necessity, for without a shield against aggression the free world would be helpless before the enemy. Military strength must be built, and we must help build it, in Europe and in other critical areas of the world. But military strength is not just a matter of delivering arms to our allies. It is also a matter of defense support to enable our allies to do more to expand and equip their own defense forces. And even arms and defense support to- gether do not provide a full answer to the Soviet threat; to believe that they do is dan- gerously to misunderstand the nature of the foe. The gun is but one weapon in the Soviet arsenal of aggression. If we ignored the necessity for building moral and polit- ical and economic strength, we would ex- pose ourselves to the danger of communist gains which could be at least as damaging as outright aggression. Since the Soviet Union does not rely exclusively on military attack, we would be foolish indeed to rely exclusively on military defense. Outline of the Program The funds required under the Mutual Security Program fall into two broad cate- gories. The first of these, which is by far the larger, is for assistance in building up the military strength of friendly nations. This aid is of two types: (1) Direct military aid, primarily in the form of military equipment and components thereof, and (2) defense support — primarily in the form of raw ma- terials, commodities, and machinery — to en- able other countries to sustain and increase their military efforts, where that type of support produces greater returns in military strength than would an equal amount of direct military aid. The bulk of the direct military aid and of the defense support will go to strengthen the defenses of the free nations in Europe. Amounts for direct mil- itary aid and defense support make up about 90 per cent of the total funds recommended for the Mutual Security Program for the fiscal year 1953. The second broad category is for economic and technical assistance, primarily for the underdeveloped areas of the world, where economic progress is the first essential in the battle for freedom. Some of these funds will in fact also support defense efforts in certain countries in Southeast Asia, where communist aggression is an immediate 55-672^- 181 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents menace. Amounts recommended for eco- nomic and technical assistance are about 10 per cent of the total. The distribution of the amounts recom- mended is shown in more detail in the following table: MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM, 1953 (In millions) Europe Near East and Africa Asia and the Pacific American Republics Multilateral Technical Assistance, Migration, and Relief Package Freight Administration Direct military 4,070 606 611 62 Defense support 1 1, 819 Economic and technical 196 2 408 22 30 Adminis- Area tration totals 5, 889 802 1, 019 84 30 75 75 Total. 1 5, 350 1, 819 656 75 3 7, 900 1 Includes economic assistance for Austria. 2 Includes assistance to support military efforts in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. 3 Columns do not add to totals because of rounding. In the Mutual Security Act of 1951, the Congress provided for an integrated pro- gram, administered by appropriate operating agencies under the general direction of the Director for Mutual Security. These ar- rangements are working well, and I recom- mend that they be continued. Under them, direct military aid will be administered by the Department of Defense. The Mutual Security Agency will administer defense support in Europe, together with technical and economic assistance in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. In South Asia, the Near East, Latin America, and the independent states of Africa, economic and technical as- sistance will be administered by the Techni- cal Cooperation Administration of the De- partment of State. We shall continue our policy of closely coordinating the Mutual Security Program with the technical assistance programs of the Organization of American States and the United Nations and its agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. In addi- tion, we shall continue to encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the investment of private capital for economic development abroad, and we shall continue to relate out- lays under the Mutual Security Program to the loans being made by the Export-Import Bank and the International Bank for Recon- struction and Development. Europe Today, the problem of achieving security and strength in free Europe, in my judg- ment, is on the way to solution. The last five years have recorded remarkable gains as a result of actions we have taken under our policy of peace through collective strength — first in Greece and Turkey; then, in 1948, through the European Recovery Program, and since 1949 through the growing defen- sive power of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The American contribution did not of itself create these gains; but it did supply the essential margin without which the Europeans could not have fought their way out of their post-war slough of despond. Five years ago, many European nations were on the verge of economic or political collapse. A divided and despairing con- tinent— next to our own, the most productive and industrially powerful in the world — lay open for Soviet conquest. How different the picture is today. 182 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [55] Europe has made immense advances — in economic output, in military strength, in political self-confidence, in progress toward unity. Today, the Soviet Union knows that it cannot achieve its purposes in Europe, so long as the policy of collective strength con- tinues. Europe still has far to go. Economic health and vitality in Europe require a series of specific actions — varying from country to country — to raise industrial and agricultural productivity, to knock down trade barriers and exchange restrictions, and to encourage the vigorous forces of competition in Euro- pean and world markets. They require further progress toward the democratic goals of a fair distribution of income, strong and free trade unions, fair and effective tax sys- tems, and programs of land reform. Above all, we in the United States do not believe that Western Europe can achieve its full strength without accelerated progress toward unity. Only this unity can release the great potential energy of free Europe. We will continue in every way we can to encourage its attainment. The difficulties are very great. It is only candid to report that progress in this direc- tion has not always been as fast as we hoped. Yet, in many respects the progress has been most impressive. A revolution has been taking place in European thinking. The Organization for European Economic Cooperation and the European Payments Union have laid founda- tions for joint action in the economic and financial fields. In the Schuman Plan, six countries are creating an international au- thority for the production and distribution of coal and steel. Under the European De- fense Community, the same six countries are planning to establish common armed forces, a common defense ministry, and a common military budget. Europe has moved faster toward integra- tion in the last five years than it did in the previous five hundred. At every stage in this movement, the United States has pro- vided encouragement and support. If this progress continues in the next five years — and I am confident it will — a new Europe will emerge as a great and creative partner in the defense of freedom. It is this progress toward European eco- nomic recovery and political unity which makes possible a growing defense effort in Western Europe. The build-up of military strength there since the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty has been most encouraging. In the coming fiscal year, European military expenditures will be considerably more than twice as large as they were in the year pre- ceding the communist aggression in Korea. Production of military materiel in Western Europe has multiplied about four times in that period. The European nations have lengthened the training periods under their compulsory military service programs and have substantially enlarged and improved their armed forces. The pace of the military build-up has given many millions of Euro- peans new confidence in their capacity to resist aggression. This is an impressive record of progress. Of course, the record is far from perfect — especially in view of the urgency of the threat posed by aggressive Soviet imperialism. We can find many specific weaknesses and short- comings to criticize — and some people in our country fasten their attention so exclusively on such things as to advocate that the defense of Europe be abandoned. I do not wish to minimize the shortcomings, but the funda- mental question to ask is: "Are we moving at a substantial rate in the right direction? Is real progress being made?" The answer is obvious. So is the conclusion to be drawn. The record abundantly warrants confidence in our European allies, and our continued steadfast support for them. Two weeks ago, at Lisbon, the member nations took the most far-reaching strides in European defense since the adoption of the North Atlantic Treaty itself in 1949. The North Atlantic Council at Lisbon endorsed the specific means through which the forces of the European Defense Community — in- cluding German contingents — will be orga- 183 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents nized and tied into General Eisenhower's command. After months of planning by the special committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Harriman, the Council made specific and concrete decisions providing for the more rapid build-up of forces and for the provi- sion of the necessary equipment and con- struction to support them. By the end of this calendar year, General Eisenhower's command is expected to have at its disposal a formidable force — including some 50 army divisions, about half of them on active duty, and some 4,000 military planes — and a sound base for further build- up in 1953 and 1954. These forces, joined by those of Greece and Turkey, will bring within measurable distance the time when even the most foolhardy man in the Kremlin will not dare risk open attack. In order to equip the forces being raised by our allies under the Lisbon agreements, we as well as they must step up our efforts. There have been delays in our own produc- tion and delivery of arms. And combat requirements for Korea have, of course, received top priority for deliveries from our current output. I am assured that produc- tion is now being accelerated substantially, and I have consequently directed that deliv- eries to the North Atlantic Treaty defense forces be greatly speeded up. The rearmament effort has also created problems in Europe. The European econ- omy, after its extraordinary comeback in the years of the European Recovery Program, has now been subjected to new and severe pressures. The Marshall Plan was designed to help restore minimum economic health, not to produce a surplus capable of creating military forces adequate for European de- fense. Today, not only has rearmament imposed a heavy direct burden, but the global consequences of rearmament — including rises in the prices both of raw materials generally and of finished goods from the United States — have drastically upset the European balance of payments. Substantial and sustained efforts will be necessary to meet these problems, even with our help. However, the European countries have a sizable capacity to increase their armed forces, to construct military bases and facil- ities, and to produce military equipment and supplies — if we provide the crucial margin of raw materials and other support for their defense efforts. If we provide this margin of resources, the European countries will be able to produce far more military equip- ment than they otherwise could, and to maintain far larger armed forces than would otherwise be possible. Our defense support will allow them to use plants, machinery, materials and manpower which exist in Europe, but which otherwise could not be devoted to defense purposes. For this rea- son, our defense support is an extremely economical way to achieve military strength for our mutual security. The funds in- cluded in the Mutual Security Program for defense support will yield, according to the best estimates, more than twice as much military strength in Europe as would the same funds spent for the direct transfer of military equipment from the United States. Accordingly, the Mutual Security Pro- gram for Europe is planned so that the United States will provide both weapons and defense support. The form of assist- ance— whether military equipment or assist- ance in financing imports of raw materials and other items where required to make possible the necessary level of European defense efforts — has been decided in each case on the basis of which form produces the most results in defensive strength at the least cost. In addition to the funds for the North Atlantic Treaty countries and Western Germany, limited amounts are included in the Mutual Security Program for Yugo- slavia, whose defiance of the Soviet Union is giving heart to untold millions behind the Iron Curtain; for Austria, where con- tinued economic assistance is necessary to maintain economic stability in the face of occupation of part of the country by Soviet forces; and for facilitating emigration from Europe under international arrangements. 184 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 6 [55] We expect soon to complete arrangements with Spain which will assist in the defense of the Mediterranean area; our part in these arrangements will be carried forward with funds already made available by the Congress. Asia, Africa, and Latin America Outside of Europe, our policy of building collective strength for peace must meet and overcome a very different range of problems. The most serious problems of Asia, Africa and Latin America occur in the underde- veloped areas — the areas which have not yet shared in the benefits of the burst of scien- tific and technical advance of the last two centuries. The people of many of these areas con- front the legacy of centuries of neglect — they are in many cases desperately poor, de- fenseless before famine and disease, disabled by illiteracy. At the same time, they have a new and burning determination to im- prove their living standards, to fulfill their desire for self-government, to control their own futures. As old social structures have failed to meet the basic needs of their peo- ples, the popular energy, so long pent up, is bursting forth in fierce nationalism and in fierce demands for real economic change. These conditions would exist even if there were no Soviet threat to world peace. But the pressure of Soviet communism, working overtime to exploit the turbulence of the under-developed areas, greatly increases the necessity for speed in meeting these condi- tions— speed in the interest, not alone of orderly and democratic development, but of the security of the whole free world. As a nation born in a struggle for indi- vidual freedom, we cordially welcome the aspirations of people to free themselves from oppression and misery. To place ourselves wholeheartedly at their side, we must work with them in their struggle against poverty and famine and illiteracy and disease. In the Point Four concept, we have a means of joining hands with the constructive forces of these areas before bitterness and frustra- tion drive them into a fatal alliance with Soviet communism. Point Four means making our scientific advances and technical know-how available for the improvement and growth of under- developed areas. Point Four means technical missionaries at work, and it also means the supplies and equipment that are needed to put new techniques into effect. No one should think that Point Four in- volves some single formula or program which is to be applied everywhere, in equal measure, throughout the under-developed regions of the world. The kinds of aid we plan must be tailored both to what we can afford at any given time and to the specific situation in each country. Our experience in Latin America has demonstrated that Point Four operations, to be successful, must be supported by adequate supplies and equip- ment. The supplies and equipment can be financed in various ways. Some countries can attract private invest- ment capital and loans to finance most of their outlays for economic development. Other countries can earn enough dollars from their own exports to finance most of the equipment and supplies they need. In still other countries, where neither loans nor private capital can meet the need, this Government must provide substantial quan- tities of supplies and equipment to assure real progress on vital programs for develop- ment. That is the direction we are taking in India today, and in other places where the need is particularly urgent and where the local plans are firm enough to produce a sound result. Today, we have technical and economic missions in 40 countries. The shirtsleeve diplomats of Point Four are carrying the American revolution to the villages and farms of the world. They are providing farmers with better seed and better fertilizer, better methods of plowing and sowing and better means of harvesting and saving the crops. They are helping to fight malaria and dysentery, trachoma and rinderpest. They 185 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents are providing training in the techniques of modern government. They are helping to build roads and canals and dams, schools and hospitals. They are teaching people to read, to revitalize the soil, to irrigate it, to drain it. In short, they are teaching people by methods of peace to change their own world without bloodshed. The funds we invest in Point Four will yield direct and immediate results in terms of larger food production, better communica- tions, more agricultural and health special- ists, engineers, and other technicians. But even more important are the longer term results. For the magic of this work is its multiplying effect: if we can help train ten teachers, they can train hundreds of children; if we can help set up ten demon- stration farms, hundreds of farmers can come and learn to use new methods; if we can help drill a hundred new wells or build a new irrigation dam, thousands of farmers can increase their yields and plow back their earnings into further improvements. In this way, a relatively small investment can bring immense results. In one district in India, the production of food has already been increased 46 per- cent. Repeat this across the continents of Asia and Africa and Latin America, and we enter a new era in the history of man. The Near East and Africa The Near East presents a sharp challenge to American statesmanship. The countries of these areas are of vital importance to the security of the free world, but the problems of achieving constructive and orderly devel- opment are extremely difficult. Living standards are generally very low. Transportation and land tenure systems are often archaic. Political and religious con- troversies simmer throughout the region. Nationalism is sometimes misdirected into fanatical outbursts which ignore the bene- fits to be gained from international coopera- tion. The communists are doing their best to stir up confusion and trouble. Most of these problems can only be solved by the people of these countries finding ways to make solid progress in developing eco- nomic strength and effective free institutions. But we can and must help them. We can help dig wells for irrigation and clean water in Iran and Iraq. We can help set up farm credit institutions and agricul- tural extension services in Lebanon and Liberia. We can help build roads and estab- lish public health services in Israel. We can help build up school and hospital services in countries throughout the area. For proj- ects of this type, I recommend economic and technical assistance in this area (includ- ing help for the Arab refugees) of 196 mil- lion dollars. Military assistance for nations in this area is recommended in the amount of 606 mil- lion dollars. Most of these funds are for Greece and Turkey, whose military assist- ance programs are carried under the head- ing of the Near East; defense support funds for those countries are included with those for Europe. To help in maintaining security in the Near East, the United States has joined with Turkey, France, Great Britain, and three Commonwealth countries in proposing the establishment of a Middle East Com- mand. We hope this Command will be- come the center of cooperative efforts by all countries concerned for the defense of the region as a whole from outside aggression. Asia and the Pacific Much of Asia at this moment is under communist attack. The free nations are holding the line against aggression in Korea and Indo-China, and are battling communist- inspired disorders in Burma, Malaya, and the Philippines. The loss of any of these countries would mean the loss of freedom for millions of people, the loss of vital raw materials, the loss of points of critical stra- tegic importance to the free world. The Mutual Security Program for this area includes military assistance in the amount of 186 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [55] 611 million dollars, and economic and tech- nical assistance of 408 million dollars, some of which will contribute direcdy to the de- fense programs of certain countries of South- east Asia. Of our military assistance, a large part will go to Indo-China where the troops of the French Union and of the Associated States are battling valiantly against the communist- led forces, and another large part will go to continue to help prepare the Chinese armies on Formosa to resist communist aggression. The rest will go to the Philippines and Thai- land, to help build forces strong enough to insure internal security. As in the Near East and Africa, however, security in Asia is far more than a military problem. Our military assistance is essen- tial to check the encroachments of commu- nist imperialism. But the long-run promise of stability and progress lies, not alone in arms, but in the provision of sufficient eco- nomic and technical support to enable the peoples of Asia to conquer their old, deep- seated and agonizing economic problems and to share in the benefits of an expanding world economy. In India, for example, the key to economic progress lies in boosting food production. This is the only way to remove the constant threat of famine and ease the desperate strug- gle for a daily livelihood. It is the only way of freeing funds now spent to import food, so they can be used instead for productive investment in developing natural resources, transportation, and industry. The whole future of India as a free nation may well lie in her ability to raise her food production and do it quickly. We must support India's own efforts to get this done. The Indian Government has al- ready set in motion a plan under which, in a very few years, she will be able to grow the food needed by her people, and will have established a sound basis for further eco- nomic development. It is a good plan, prac- tical and definite. India itself is financing most of it. And we are greatly stepping up our aid for this plan with confidence that the sums we spend will bring concrete results. This is an example of how our aid can produce large-scale results by supporting the efforts of the people of the Asian countries. In the same way, we are helping to expand irrigation in Pakistan, to eliminate malaria in Thailand, to increase rice yields in Burma. It is vital that this work be carried forward rapidly. For, in this region, there is still time to set in motion programs which will tap the energies of the people and give them solid hope for advancement under govern- ments determined to resist communist ex- pansion. We must not let this opportunity go by default. Let it never be said of the American people that our eyes are focused only on what might have been — that we grow concerned about the countries of Asia only after they have been lost to the enemy. The bold and wise investment of American funds in this region in the next few years can make a vital difference to the future of freedom. Special note should be taken of the con- tribution that the new, free Japan can make to the growth of economic strength in Asia. A growing trade partnership of Japan with Southeast and South Asia can benefit every- one concerned. Such a partnership in free Asia can result in a self-supporting, expand- ing regional economy, free of permanent dependence on United States economic aid and free from the danger of satellite slavery under the Soviet orbit. Latin America I do not need to restate here the inesti- mable importance of Latin America. Its governments and its peoples are joined with us in the Organization of American States and the Rio Treaty to bolster the security of the free world. It is a most important source of vital raw materials; and it carries on with us a large and mutually advanta- geous trade. In case of emergency, its mili- tary forces can partially relieve ours of some of the important tasks connected with hemi- sphere defense. 187 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents In order to assist hemisphere defense, I am recommending military assistance of 62 mil- lion dollars for the Latin American countries. In addition, I recommend 23 million dollars to carry forward the remarkable technical cooperation work now under way in nine- teen Latin American states to develop agri- culture and natural resources, education, health, transportation, and other fundamen- tal services. This includes 1 million dollars for our share of the technical cooperation work of the Organization of American States. This assistance — supplemented as it is by substantial amounts of private loans and investments and public loans through the Export-Import Bank and the Interna- tional Bank — has already helped materially to raise living standards, speed economic development, and reduce vulnerability to undemocratic movements of the extreme right or the extreme left. The policy of the good neighbor has been one of our most successful policies; we must not falter in our loyalty to that policy today. The major national security programs I am recommending for the fiscal year 1953, including the Mutual Security Program, total about 64 billion dollars. This request raises once again the question whether the American nation can afford so much money for national security. This is a serious ques- tion. It requires a serious answer. Certainly the total security program — of which the Mutual Security Program is a relatively small part — is by any standard a large one. It has resulted in some unavoid- able economic dislocations and inflationary pressures. Yet, the burden has been carried with remarkably little strain. The fundamental reason for this is that our national production has been expanding rapidly, and will continue to rise. Security expenditures, measured in 1951 prices, rose about 18 billion dollars from 1950 to 1951; but the increase in our national output was even larger — totaling about 26 billion dollars. During the next two years, we can continue to raise output by not less than 5 percent annually, increasing the gross national prod- uct (at 195 1 prices) to about 340-345 billion dollars in 1952, and to about 355-360 billion in 1953, compared with 327 billion in 195 1 and 301 billion in 1950. If output rises at this rate, we will have increased our total annual production about one-fifth in three years. Even with the immense diversion to security purposes, production should be high enough, by the beginning of 1953, to permit total civilian consumption and capital invest- ment at least 50 percent higher than during World War II. There will certainly be cutbacks in some things. Yet, even if automobile production should drop to around 4 million units this year, it must be remembered that this is only slightly less than the average production of 1948 and 1949. If housing should dip below one million units, it must be remembered that we have succeeded in producing more than one million units per year in only three years of our history. And as we expand our output of vital materials such as steel and aluminum, we can again increase the output of such civilian items. All in all, our present security expendi- tures are clearly within our economic capac- ity. And as our basic productive strength continues to increase in the years ahead, we should be able to carry more easily the sub- stantial security costs which may continue to be necessary. Let us consider for a moment the costs of possible alternatives to our present policy. The alternative of premeditated and delib- erate war is one which no democratic or God-fearing people can for a moment enter- tain. Even if we were insane enough to consider it, however, it would obvioulsy en- tail expenditures immensely greater than our present ones, not to speak of the terrible waste and destruction of human life, prop- erty, and natural resources. Another alternative — of contracting our commitments and retreating to the Western 188 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [55] Hemisphere — has a monetary seductiveness, because it would seem to relieve us of the contributions we are now making to collec- tive defense. But, in fact, if we followed the policy of retreat, we would have to try to replace the contributions to our security which now come from the cooperation of our allies. We could not replace some of those contributions at any cost; others only at very high cost, not just in money, resources and military manpower, but in the precious polit- ical and economic freedoms we are mobil- izing to defend. The policy of retreat would deprive us of armed forces which, if called upon to fight for the defense of their own countries, would at the same time be fighting for the defense of ours. It would deprive us of essential raw materials. It would impose upon us a much higher level of mobilization than we have today. It would require a stringent and comprehensive system of allocation and rationing in order to husband our smaller resources. It would require us to become a garrison state, and to impose upon ourselves a system of centralized regimentation unlike anything we have ever known. In the end, when the enemy, encouraged by our retreat, began to organize the rest of the world against us, we would face the prospect of bloody battle — and on our own shores. The ultimate costs of such a policy would be incalculable. Its adoption would be a mandate for national suicide. I am asking the Congress for 7.9 billion dollars for the Mutual Security Program — an amount which will bring returns no other policy could hope to produce so econom- ically. I am deeply convinced, after studying the matter carefully, that if there is any question about this amount, it is not whether it is too large, but whether it is too small. These funds are needed, all of them, to pay for essential parts of the total under- taking to help free nations build adequate combined defenses. If the military assistance funds are reduced, this will mean a cor- responding reduction in the effective combat forces which can be created in Europe and Asia, and a serious disruption of the time- table for achieving adequate defenses. If the defense support funds are reduced, it will mean that our partners in this endeavor will be unable to raise and train the sched- uled forces or unable to expand their own military production as planned. If economic and technical funds are reduced, there will be a corresponding reduction in what we can do to help countries in Asia, the Near East, Africa, and Latin America to strengthen themselves, and a correspondingly greater danger of these areas falling to communist aggression or subversion. I would not counsel the Congress to spend one dollar more than is necessary to support our policy of peace. But there is no economy more false than that which is summed up in the tragic phrase, "too little and too late." Such a policy risks the loss of our invest- ment as well as our objective. It would be foolish and dangerous to withhold a dollar now at the risk of expending, not just many times as many dollars, but human lives as well, a few years later. The question is frequently — and prop- erly— asked: How long are we going to have to continue this type of program? I can- not— no one can — give an answer in terms of a specific month and year. But I can say that one of the central purposes in every- thing we are doing under the Mutual Secu- rity Program is to build strength which will eliminate the need for assistance from the United States. This is not a program for carrying the rest of the world on our backs. This is a program for getting the other free nations on their own feet, so they can move ahead without special help from us or anyone else. As the Mutual Security Program moves ahead — as larger military forces become equipped and trained, as economic strength continues to increase — we can expect the 55-672^66 189 [55] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents costs to the United States to decline. This is not only our own desire; it is also the natural hope and objective of the people of other countries. Free people do not relish dependence on other nations. They wish to achieve as rapidly as possible the economic health and vigor which will enable them to sustain their own programs of defense and economic progress. The Mutual Security Program will hasten the day when this will become possible. History has thrust a fearful responsibility upon the United States. Today, the survival of freedom and civilization on this earth may depend on the initiative and decisions taken in our own Nation's capital. The free peoples look to us for leadership. Leader- ship implies more than a recognition of the problem. It implies also a capacity to work out a joint solution with our partners, and to stay with it till the end; it implies resolu- tion and fortitude. We have shown that we understand the threat. But some are doubtful whether we will stay the course until we achieve peace in a free world. I am not in doubt. I know that we shall succeed. It is perhaps true that our history has been characterized by impatience, by a passion for quick results. It is equally true, however, that it has also been characterized by perseverance and determination — the perseverance of the pioneer, making his steadfast way into the unknown West; the determination of the farmer and worker, transforming a savage wilderness into the strongest and most productive nation known to history. Perseverance and determination, steadfastness and dependability — it was these qualities, and not recklessness or im- prudence, which built America. It is our obligation to turn these qualities outward. We must show the world that we can meet any crisis, and that temporary frustration will not drive us to panicky aggression or to ignominious retreat. This is the challenge of free world leadership. In the last analysis, our leadership must stand or fall on the moral power behind it. No nation, of course, can undertake policies which are not squarely and solidly based on national self-interest. But world leadership in these perilous times calls for policies which, while springing from self-interest, transcend it — policies which serve as a bridge between our own national objectives and the needs and aspirations of other free people. I deeply believe that the Mutual Security Program is an expression of a new spirit in the world — a spirit based on faith in democ- racy and human decency, and looking to a new collaboration among nations and peoples. It expresses the deep reality of our friendship for other peoples — the sincerity of our determination to join with them in build- ing a world where freedom, justice and secu- rity will exist for all. Harry S. Truman note: On June 20, 1952, the President signed the Mutual Security Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 141). For his remarks upon signing the Supplemental Appropria- tion Act, which included the Mutual Security Ap- propriation Act, see Item 205. Earlier, on January 14, 1952, the White House released the text of the President's nomination of William H. Draper, Jr., chairman of the Long Island Transit Authority, to be the United States Special Representative in Europe. The release stated that Mr. Draper "will be con- cerned with the various aspects of the Mutual Secu- rity Program in Europe. He will act for the Director for Mutual Security in providing on a regional basis coordination, continuous supervision and general direction of the military and economic assistance programs. He will be charged with seeing that these programs are effectively integrated and administered so as to assure that the defensive strength of the nations concerned shall be built as quickly as possible on the basis of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid. He will also exercise general super- vision over the European activities of the Mutual Security Agency. "The United States Special Representative will maintain close liaison with the American ambassa- dors to the various European capitals, the United States Deputy to the North Atlantic Council and the Commanding General of the United States European Command. He will also maintain close contact with the United States members of the various North I9O Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [57] Atlantic Treaty agencies in Europe and with the United States elements of General Eisenhower's Headquarters. "Proposals for improvements in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are presently under active con- sideration. As this reorganization moves forward, it is expected that the United States Special Repre- sentative will become the senior United States civilian representative in Europe responsible for North Atlantic Treaty as well as Mutual Security Program matters." See also Items 57, 61, 332. 56 Remarks to Members of a Catholic University Dramatic Group Leaving for Korea. March 6, 1952 THANK YOU very much, Father. I hope you will have a successful trip. And these young ladies can always remedy the situa- tion by becoming soldiers' wives, as they no doubt will in time to come, because there is hardly a young man in this country now who is not a veteran of some war. I am a veteran of a war myself, but I am too old for the purpose now. I hope you have a most successful trip. You are doing a great thing. It's wonderful. You know, it is the inclination of our people to neglect things that are not on the biggest scale in the world. And I fear very much that our servicemen in Korea have been somewhat neglected, on conditions like you are trying to remedy. And I am so glad that you are going over there to remedy them, because what those young men are doing over there is keeping us out of a con- dition which would otherwise be allout. They are helping to prevent a third world war, and their morale is great. They are wonderful people. They have kept us out of a third world war so far, and I think they are going to keep us out entirely. So, when you go over there, you give them my greetings, and tell them that there is one man in the United States who appreciates entirely what they are doing. note: The President spoke at 12:15 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening words he referred to Rev. Gilbert V. Hartke, O.P., head of the Speech and Drama Department at Catholic University and one of the founders of Players, Inc. 57 Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Mutual Security Program. March 6, 1952 [ Broadcast from the White House at 10:30 p.m. ] My fellow Americans: I want to talk to you tonight about a mes- sage I sent to the Congress today. I hope you will read that message. It's about the mutual security program and it is very im- portant to you. The mutual security program is just what its name says. It is a way to get security — security against aggression and war — through mutual effort, through the effort of many nations helping one another. This program is already in effect and it is working successfully. The present authority for the mutual secu- rity program will expire on June 30 of this year. Today I asked the Congress for au- thority to continue the program for another year. The action the Congress takes on that re- quest has a great deal to do with our chances of avoiding another world war. It may make the difference between life and death for many of you who are listening to me tonight. That is because the best insurance we can take out against another world war is to stick together with our friends. Together, we cannot be conquered. The Soviet Union cannot achieve its dream of world conquest 191 [57] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents unless it picks off the free nations one by one. The Soviet policy is the old one: divide and conquer. Our policy is an old one, too: in unity there is strength. There are still some people in this country who are so blind they won't see this. They try to tell us we ought to confine ourselves to building up our own defenses here at home so we can retreat behind them if trouble comes. That's the way to be safe, they say, and save money at the same time. Well, they're wrong on both counts. They are not presenting a low-cost plan for na- tional security. They are trying to sell a high-cost plan for national insecurity. And I don't think the people of this country are going to buy it. Why, it's as plain as the car in front of your door that we cannot cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. It takes a lot of things to make an automobile. It takes steel and chrome and copper and aluminum and lead. We cannot produce all those things out of our own resources. We have to import every bit of our chrome, two-thirds of our aluminum ore, one-half our lead, and more than a third of our copper and zinc. It takes about 18 pounds of manganese to make the steel that goes into the average automobile. Do you know how much of that 18 pounds we produce in this country? We produce just about 1 pound. And it works the same way when it comes to mak- ing a tank, or an airplane, or an aircraft carrier. We have to have materials from abroad. Now, these are facts. And in the light of these facts, I challenge anyone to tell me how this country is going to defend itself if we abandon our allies and hole up on this continent. It is perfectly plain that it can't be done. And if we tried to do it — we would have to cut our civilian requirements to the bone, we would have to raise huge armed forces to try to protect our shores against all comers, and we would have to clamp on controls that would make anything we've seen so far look pale. Instead of saving money, we would have to spend many times more than we do now, to make up for the loss of materials and armed forces we now get from our allies. What is worse, we would still not be secure. Now, nobody is saying that we must take over the defense of the free world all by our- selves. That would be just as foolish as try- ing to get along without any friends at all. We can't defend the whole world by our- selves. We shouldn't try, and we aren't trying. But surely it is to our own self- interest to help our friends to defend them- selves, because by defending themselves they are also defending us. That is what we have been doing ever since 1947. That is the way we have been blocking the Kremlin's conspiracy to under- mine and take over the free countries around the world. And we have had a lot of success in this great effort. We have put a lot into this struggle. It has called for American troops and arms in Europe, and American fleets on the seas, and American bases in foreign lands, and a hard, bitter conflict in Korea. Our allies are putting a lot into the strug- gle, too. We and they together have made a great deal of headway in building a solid system for our mutual defense. Just in this last year we have made great strides in setting up this system of defense, both in the Atlantic and the Pacific areas. The agreement that was made 2 weeks ago at Lisbon to establish a European army repre- sents one of the greatest advances toward European unity that was ever made. This great defense system — on both sides of the globe — will work if the nations in it have the armed forces to fill it out. And those armed forces have to have the weapons and the equipment they need to be effective. These are the purposes of this mutual se- curity program — to get weapons and equip- ment into the hands of our allies, and to help our friends build up their economic strength so they can stand on their own feet as full partners in the cause of freedom. Our contributions will take different forms, depending on the nature of the need 192 Harry S. Truman, igp Mar. 6 [57] and the nature of the threat. The mutual security program, as I presented it to the Congress today, combines three types of contributions. To begin with, there is the contribution of straight military equipment and arms to help other nations defend themselves — and thereby help defend us. Of the funds I have asked for, more than two-thirds of the total — over $5 billion — will go for these military items, because the largest gaps in the free world's strength at present are in the actual weapons needed for defense. The second type of contribution consists of raw materials, commodities, and ma- chinery needed to support the military effort. For example, we might send steel to help another country make its own guns instead of sending it the finished weapons. This is one example of what we call "defense sup- port," for which I am asking $1,700,000,000. These funds will enable our friends in West- ern Europe to produce more military equip- ment and maintain larger armed forces. Our support for their defense efforts will hasten the day when they can maintain their defense effort without our help. Some people say we should not send our partners such things as raw materials and machinery. They make a great point of saying this is where we can economize. They claim we can save money by sending our partners only things that shoot. What these people don't realize is that this would not be saving money at all. On the contrary, it would cost us more money. Because if we don't make it possible for other nations to increase their own defense efforts, we would have to send more arms from our own production. And that would cost us a great deal more. There is a third kind of contribution we are making to attain mutual security. There are parts of the world where plows can do a better job in maintaining stability and democracy than tanks or warplanes or ma- chine guns. There the Communist makes his bid for power not as a conqueror, but in the guise of a friend offering an end to the torments of famine and disease. We know the Communist promises are false; but it would be ridiculous to go to the peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Near East and say "Here are guns, use them to drive away the men who are promising you what you have always wanted." Stomach communism cannot be halted with weapons of war. We must meet the challenge with more appro- priate means. That is what the point 4 program does. The people of the underdeveloped coun- tries are hungry. We can show them how to grow more food. They are sick. We can show them how they may be healed. Their countries are rich in resources, but their people are very poor. We can show them how to use their resources in a way that will raise their standards of living. This is the first line of defense against communism in those areas of the world. I have therefore included in my message to Congress a request for some $600,000,000 in economic and technical assistance. It is only a fraction of the amount I have asked for military purposes, but who can say that in the long run it may not have a greater effect? The victories that can be won in this battle with a relatively small amount of as- sistance on our part are fantastic. I'd like to give you some examples of what we have done to show what we can do. Over in Indochina, the rice bowl of that unhappy land is the Red River valley. Since the war in Indochina, the Red River valley hasn't been able to produce the rice it should because the irrigation of the district depends on electricity to operate its pumps, and the powerlines run through territory held by the Communists who, of course, cut them. So, Harold E. Schwartz, one of our technical advisers from South Dakota, had some diesel engines brought in to pump the water. To- day, 15,000 farm families have 25,000 acres of rice they didn't have last year. This proj- ect only cost us $75,000. But one rice crop from this area will be worth $2 million. Now there's an example of how a little in- 193 [57] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents genuity and a small outlay of funds can pro- duce results on a big scale. Another example is Turkey, where a veri- table agricultural revolution is being brought about with the help of a team of 9 American experts led by Elmer Starch of Lincoln, Nebr. In 3 years Turkey has raised its grain pro- duction by over 50 percent and has tripled its cotton production. Now let us look for a minute at India. Since the shadow of Communist control has darkened China, India stands as the largest democratic nation in all Asia. But India is faced with the same kind of threat which overpowered the Chinese. We have a chance to help stop that threat in India. Not by sending guns and planes, but by doing just the kind of thing I've been telling you about. The first essential step in India is to boost food output so there won't be any more famines, and daily living won't be so hard for people as it is now. The Indian Govern- ment has a concrete plan to get this done. They are moving right ahead on it. And we are backing them up with technical assist- ance and fertilizer and supplies for irriga- tion projects, tube wells, and the like. Al- ready, projects have been set up to bring point 4 help to 15,000 villages. These proj- ects will bring modern methods to 3 million farms. They will make available on a large scale the marvelous results that have been achieved by one of our agricultural experts, Horace Holmes of Tennessee, in working with the Indian farmers. They will attack disease, illiteracy, and poverty where they must be attacked, at the village grassroots. All these things I've been telling you about are part of the mutual security program. These are the three interrelated parts: first, direct military assistance, which is the big- gest part right now; second, the contribu- tions we make to support the defense efforts of other nations; and, third, our programs of economic and technical assistance. This is not a program to carry the world on our shoulders. It is a program to make it possible for the world to stand on its own feet. I think our money is well spent on a pro- gram like this. It's the cheapest and most effective way to achieve security. But there are those among us who say we can't afford it. We've heard that one before. They are the same people who have been saying "we can't afford it" to every worthwhile thing this Nation has undertaken in the last 20 years. If they had been right, we would be bankrupt now. But they weren't right and we aren't bankrupt. Then, there are others, both in Congress and out, who are saying, "Sure, I'm all for the mutual security program. It's a fine thing, and we must support it. But we'll have to cut it by several billion dollars." Now I know this is a very popular point of view, especially in an election year — just as popular as a campaign pledge to reduce taxes. But I think most of you will agree with me that we'd be better off to win the fight against communism than to win any particular election. The figure of $7,900,000,000 that I am recommending was not just taken out of the air. It is the result of many months of care- ful study. I would not recommend that the Congress spend a single dollar more than our national security requires. Neither would I recommend spending a single dollar less than our national security requires. I am convinced that we cannot afford the policy of "too little and too late." The risks in such a policy are too great. The cost of the entire mutual security pro- gram I have recommended is less than 2V2 percent of our national output. And this country is raising its output by something like 5 percent every year. We can afford this program. No, the real threat to our security isn't the danger of bankruptcy. It's the danger of Communist aggression. If communism is allowed to absorb the free nations, one by one, then we would be isolated from our sources of supply and detached from our 194 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 6 [57] friends. Then we would have to take de- fense measures which might really bankrupt our economy, and change our way of life so that we wouldn't recognize it as American any longer. That's the very thing we're try- ing to keep from happening. It doesn't have to happen. It won't happen if we stand together with our friends. The essence of this whole effort is that it's a joint effort. We do our part, and others do theirs. You may hear the critics saying that we are doing more than our share, and that our allies are not doing theirs. It is no secret that we are continually urging our allies to do more. But that does not mean that they are not already doing a great deal. They are. And they're making real sacri- fices. Take the British. They're down to 16 cents worth of meat a week. That makes a mighty small package when the butcher wraps it up. They would have more if it weren't for their defense effort. Do you think we ought to ask them to cut that 16 cents worth of meat a week down to a dime's worth — or a nickel's worth? Do they have to do that to do their share? Would you want to tell them that they ought to spend less than 16 cents a week on meat? The real questions we ought to ask about our allies are these: Do they work hard in the common cause? Are they moving in the right direction? I think we can say yes to both questions. During the last 2 years our European allies have doubled their defense budgets. They have more than tripled their military production. They have lengthened their periods of compulsory military service. The number of European divisions available to General Eisenhower has already more than doubled. We have good allies, and they have not failed us. Some people ask: "Will they fight?" Look at the Greeks and the Turks. They fight. The French are spending their blood and their treasure in Indochina. The British are fighting communism in the jungles of Malaya. And in Korea itself, where we bear the major burden, our allies have joined us with what they can provide. We have good and gallant friends on our side, and they will be there if the test comes. What I have been trying to say to you tonight is this: We and the other nations who are ranged beside us have set our feet upon the right road. The mutual security program, in conjunction with our efforts to build up our own forces, is the best and cheapest way to ensure our security. It is a carefully thoughtout plan of action to meet the challenge — not only the challenge of Soviet Russia but the challenge of our time. The mutual security program has already made solid achievements. We are not losing, we are winning our fight. We would be foolish from our own point of view and guilty in the eyes of history if we were to stop now. The program I recommended to the Con- gress today is a necessity if we are going to block the plans of the Soviet rulers to domi- nate the world. Make no mistake about it — this is the way we can strike the hardest blows against Russian communism. That is why the action the Congress takes on my recommendations is going to mean so much to you and to me — to every American. I want you to understand this well, so you will know who it is that just talks against the Communists and who it is that actually votes against them when the roll is called in the Senate and the House of Representa- tives. It is awfully easy to "demagogue" in favor of economy and against what is scornfully referred to as "foreign aid." Congressional action on our mutual security program will be a real test of statesmanship. If the Congress meets that test, it is in our power to leave our children the most price- less legacy of all — a peaceful world and a better life. History has given us this re- sponsibility and this opportunity. God grant that we may have the courage and the strength to do our duty. note: See also Item 55. 195 [58] Mar. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents 58 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the Labor Dispute in the Petroleum Industry. March 6, 1952 Dear Mr. Feinsinger: On the basis of the information and ad- vice submitted to me by the Office of Defense Mobilization and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, I am of the opinion that the labor disputes in the petroleum industry are of a character which substantially threaten the progress of national defense. Thus, in accordance with the terms of Exec- utive Order 10233, I am referring the dis- putes to the Wage Stabilization Board and asking that the Board investigate and inquire into the issues in dispute and promptly re- port to me with its recommendations to the parties as to fair and equitable terms of settlement. The report of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service indicates that the unions and the leading oil companies have made no progress in resolving their dif- ferences. Strikes in various parts of the industry are scheduled for Monday, March 10, and the shutting down of some opera- tions would begin on or about Friday, March 7. It appears that further mediation and conciliation would not be effective in time to avoid serious production losses. The work stoppage which is threatened by these dis- putes would close down the greater part of the petroleum industry. The various unions involved in these disputes — the Oil Workers International Union (CIO), various Independent unions, and certain local unions affiliated with the A.F. of L. — have contracts throughout the industry. I shall forward to you as soon as possible a list of the various companies in- volved in these disputes at the present time. The list will include but not be limited to the following companies: Cities Service Oil Corporation Deep Rock Oil Corporation Gulf Oil Corporation Shell Oil Company Sinclair Oil Corporation Socony Vacuum Oil Company Standard Oil Company (Indiana) Texas Oil Company A curtailment of operations in the petro- leum industry would have a serious impact on the defense program as well as on the civilian economy. The Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization has advised me on the extent to which the mobilization pro- gram would be affected by interruption of production in this vital industry. The various parties to these disputes owe it to the American people to cooperate with their Government in maintaining work and production schedules while this matter is be- fore the Board. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Nathan P. Feinsinger, Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, Washington 25, D.C.] note: On July 23, 1952, the President received a letter from Mr. Feinsinger stating that the last of the petroleum industry disputes, which involved approxi- mately 75 companies and more than 200 bargaining units, had been settled. Mr. Feinsinger's letter, dated July 18, also reported that the industry had adopted as a pattern for agreements one of the first settlements, that of the Farmers' Union Central Exchange of Billings, Mont., and the Oil Workers International Union, CIO, "approving an increase of 15 cents an hour, instead of the proposed i8/4 cents, along with certain fringe adjustments." Executive Order 10233 "Amending Executive Order 10161 With Respect to Wage Stabilization and Settlement of Labor Disputes" is dated April 21, 1951 (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 743). I96 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 7 [59] 59 Letter to the President of the Senate Urging Action on Reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. March 7, 1952 My dear Mr. President: I am writing to urge favorable Senate action on Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 relating to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The plan already has been overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives. It will become law on March 14 unless dis- approved by the Senate by that date. Reorganization Plan No. 1 provides the basis for a thorough reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Its essential feature is abolition of the offices of the sixty- four Collectors of Internal Revenue and other statutory offices requiring Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Under the plan, all positions below the Com- missioner of Internal Revenue are filled through the civil service merit system. This reorganization plan is an essential part of a program to assure honesty, integrity and efficiency in government. Unfortu- nately, those who find it to their advantage to preserve the present system, or to play politics with the integrity of the public serv- ice, have raised specious arguments against the plan that obscure the real issue. The plain fact is that the plan must stand or fall on one issue — whether we want to take the necessary steps to assure efficient, honest and impartial administration of the internal revenue laws. It has been called to my attention that a bill was offered to the Senate last week as a so-called "substitute" for my reorganization plan. Its language is almost the same as the language of Plan No. 1 — with two differ- ences. One difference purports to safeguard existing rights and remedies of taxpayers. Legal officers of the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department have assured me this provision is not necessary, since all existing rights and remedies of the taxpayers are preserved. The second difference is the fundamental one. It would require Senate confirmation of appointment to ninety-nine revenue offices — more political appointments than at present — while my plan would place all these positions under civil service. Since that is the only real difference, it is clear that those who support the "substitute" bill also support all of my reorganization plan ex- cept the part which eliminates political patronage in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. This presents squarely the one vital ques- tion— is the business of tax collection to be taken out of politics ? Those who have studied this question say that the answer is clear — that internal revenue officers must be divorced from polit- ical obligations and influences. The Hoover Commission on Reorganization of the Exec- utive Branch of the Government has taken that position. In its report on the Treasury Department, the Commission said the politi- cal appointments of Collectors of Internal Revenue and certain other officials is one of the chief handicaps to effective organization of the Department. The Commission said these appointments are regarded by some as sinecures and that, in any event, they form a bar to orderly development of an experienced staff. Mr. Robert Ramspeck, the Chairman of the Civil Service Commis- sion, in answering the question, has said that a civil service employee's allegiance is to all the people, while a Collector of Internal Revenue must give first allegiance to the people who got him his political job. Be- cause of the political patronage system, Mr. Ramspeck says, Collectors believe it is more important for them to play politics than to be efficient tax collectors. Civil service status is certainly not an ab- solute guarantee of honesty and integrity. But the record shows a far smaller propor- tion of misconduct among employees with civil service status than among those selected on a patronage basis. In the past year, 197 [59] Mar. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents it has been necessary to separate from the service seven out of the forty-seven Internal Revenue Collectors not having civil service status. That is one out of seven — nearly fifteen per cent. In the case of civil service employees, on the other hand, the number accused of improper conduct connected with tax collections is only a small fraction of one per cent. I have been interested to note that twenty- six Senators have sponsored bills to require civil service appointment of Collectors of Internal Revenue. Those bills are S. 2412 and S. 2484, both introduced this year. It is also interesting to note that seven of these twenty-six Senators are members and con- stitute a majority of the Committee which voted against my reorganization plan. It seems obvious that a vote against Reorga- nization Plan No. 1 is inconsistent with the sponsorship of these bills. Approval of Plan No. 1 will be a major step toward good organization and better management in the government. Disap- proval of the plan, on the other hand, would be a step in the opposite direction involving serious consequences. Disapproval of the plan would be a blow to our efforts to assure efficiency and prevent improper conduct in government. Its disapproval would mean continuance of a revenue system which is not adapted to present-day requirements for sound and efficient administration. Dis- approval of the plan would be a defeat for civil service reform — and a victory for pro- ponents of a political patronage system. We must not let these things happen. The action of the Senate on Plan No. 1 will have a significance far beyond admin- istrative improvement in the Bureau of In- ternal Revenue. Our citizens are entitled to a tax collecting agency of thorough effi- ciency and unquestioned integrity. They are entitled to a Revenue Service with an organization and management which justi- fies their complete confidence. Plan No. 1 provides a concrete test of our willingness and ability to take positive action to promote such a service. Millions of American taxpayers will be watching the Senate action on the reorgani- zation plan. They have been hearing a lot lately about corruption in government, and they are concerned about what is being done to strengthen the Federal service against it. These taxpayers will be greatly interested in seeing whether Senators are more interested in their political patronage than in good public service. They will be greatly inter- ested in seeing whether some Senators are more interested in using corruption as a vehicle to attack the Administration than they are in actually taking steps to assure clean government. I would hate to think that the Senate will consider this matter on a partisan basis. However, I have noticed that five of the six Republican Senators on the Committee voted against this reorganization plan to provide increased efficiency and integrity in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Those five Senators — like many of their Republican colleagues — have made a great cry about cleaning up any graft and corruption in gov- ernment. I think it is fair to ask whether they really want to do something to assure clean, efficient government or whether all their talk is pure politics. The vote on Reorganization Plan No. 1 will show who it is that is just talking about corruption and who it is that really wants to do something about it. I hope the Sen- ate— Republicans as well as Democrats — will keep faith with our taxpayers by voting for this important reorganization plan. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate of the United States, Washington, D.C.] note: See also Items i, n, 53. 198 Harry S. Truman, J952 Mar. 7 [60] 60 Memorandum Directing Agency Heads To Decline To Comply With a Request for Information by the Chairman, Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. March 7, 1952 To the heads of all departments and agencies: Set out below is the text of a letter I am sending today to Representative Frank L. Chelf, Chairman of a Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. In view of the considerations set out in my letter, you should respectfully decline to comply with Representative Chelf's request for the information in question, if you have received such a request. Harry S. Truman Dear Fran\: It has come to my attention that you have requested a number of departments and agencies in the Executive Branch to furnish the following information: A list of all cases referred to the Depart- ment of Justice or U.S. Attorneys for either criminal or civil action by any governmental department or agency within the last six years, in which: a. Action was declined by the Department of Justice, including in each such case the reason or reasons assigned by said Depart- ment for such refusal to act. b. Said cases were returned by the Depart- ment of Justice to the governmental De- partment or agency concerned for further information or investigation. In such cases, a statement of all subsequent action taken by the Department of Justice should be included. c. Said cases have been referred to the Department of Justice and have been pend- ing in the Department for a period of more than one year and are not included in b. above. In my view, it would be impractical and unwise for the departments and agencies to endeavor to comply with that request. I want to make it clear that I have no wish to obstruct your subcommittee in any legitimate inquiry it may wish to make. If there is anything wrong in the Department of Justice, I am just as anxious as anyone else — probably more anxious than anyone else — to find out about it and correct it. However, this request of yours is so broad and sweeping in scope that it would seri- ously interfere with the conduct of the Gov- ernment's business if the departments and agencies should undertake to comply with it. I am advised that it would require the examination of hundreds of thousands of files, that it would take hundreds of em- ployees away from their regular duties for an extensive period of time, and that it would cost the Government millions of dollars. All this would be done, not for the purpose of investigating specific complaints, not for the purpose of evaluating credible evidence of wrongdoing, but on the basis of a dragnet approach to examining the administration of the laws. I do not believe such a procedure to be compatible with those provisions of the Con- stitution which vest the executive power in the President and impose upon him the duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. I believe that the investigative functions of the Congress have an important place in our Constitutional system, and I believe that they can be and should be used to help reform and strengthen the laws to be administered by the Executive. However, I believe just as strongly that this Congressional power should be exerted only in a fashion that is consistent with the proper discharge of the Constitutional responsibilities of the Execu- tive Branch. I feel sure that you agree with 199 [60] Mar. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents these propositions as a general matter, and I am confident that we can agree upon their practical application with respect to the work of your subcommittee. However, in the light of the considerations set forth above, I am advising the depart- ments and agencies that they should not undertake to comply with this particular request. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman 61 Message to the Congress Transmitting First Report on the Mutual Security Program. March 7, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the First Re- port on the Mutual Security Program, cover- ing operations in furtherance of the purposes of the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (P.L. 165, 82d Congress). The Report reviews the steps we are taking with other nations to build up the strength of the free world, in support of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Although the Mutual Security Program requires us to spend large amounts for troops and weapons, it is a program for peace. Its ultimate success will come when the troops and weapons are no longer needed, and the monies now required for defense can be used to raise the living stand- ards of our own and other nations who are truly devoted to peace. Harry S. Truman note: The report is published as House Document 371 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). See also Items 55, 57, 332. 62 Message to the Convention of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association on Federal Power Policy. March 13, 1952 I AM TAKING this opportunity to send you a special message about our Federal power policy, because of the extraordinary importance of that subject to you. Right now, there is a terrific, fight raging over our Federal power policy — and the rural electric cooperatives have a very large stake in that fight. Last September, speaking in San Fran- cisco, I said something about our power policy. I said then, and I say now, that I don't believe in Government for special privilege. Our resources should be used for the benefit of all the people, not just a few. I said then, and I say now, that when elec- tric power is produced with the people's money it ought to be used for the benefit of the people and not for the benefit of the private power companies. Those are the principles on which the Federal Government has been operating. But the private power lobby never has agreed with those principles and it doesn't agree with them now. That is what is back of the attacks on our Federal power policy today. The power policy which has been followed by the Federal Government in recent years is strongly supported by people who put the needs of conservation and the public interest first. That policy is entirely in accord with the American tradition. It provides for multiple purpose river basin programs, including the development of hydroelectric power, and it assures wide- 200 Harry S. Truman, J952 Mar. 13 [62] spread use of this power by preventing pri- vate companies from monopolizing it. Pioneering in a field which the private power companies had willfully neglected, the Federal power policy actively encourages the growth of rural electric cooperatives so that rural families may have the advantage of electric service at reasonable rates. This policy recognizes the long-estab- lished right of each American community, rural or urban, to undertake its own electric service on a cooperative or municipal basis, or to permit a private agency to perform that service under public regulation. It assures communities that choose to pro- vide their own electric service that they will not have to pay toll to private power com- panies for their supplies of power developed from public waters by public investment in river-basin programs. To this end our power policy gives a preference to rural elec- tric cooperatives as well as to States, mu- nicipalities and other public bodies, and provides for transmission of the power by the most economic means to the points of wholesale delivery. Now, these things are the heart of our Federal power policy. And anyone who is not blinded by prejudice can see that it is a perfectly simple, commonsense policy for increasing the strength of our country and the welfare of our people. In bringing concrete benefits to the people, and in demonstrating to the whole world what American democratic methods can accomplish, the results of this power policy have been tremendous. Beginning with the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933, it has provided a terrific stimulus to the entire electric power business of the country, public and private. Residential rates for electric service have gone down, making possible about a three- fold increase since 1933 in the average home use of electricity. The number of electrified farms has in- creased six times over. We are rapidly ap- proaching the time when virtually 100 per- cent rural electrification will be attained, at rates permitting constandy expanding use for all farm purposes. Corresponding increases in the use of elec- tric power per industrial worker have con- tributed to the phenomenal output of Amer- ican industry. Federal waterpower development has demonstrated that ample supplies of low- cost energy lead the way to great industrial growth in regions which were formerly largely dependent upon raw material pro- duction. The private power industry meanwhile, far from being hurt by this program, has expanded its capacity, its output, its rev- enues, and its profits, far beyond anything achieved in its previous history. This Federal power program has created billions of dollars of new wealth by produc- tive, self-liquidating investment, which has, in turn, created new industries and new jobs. It has thus broadened the base for State and local as well as Federal taxation. It has produced constantly expanding demands upon the electrical equipment in- dustry for turbines, generators, and other electric system equipment; for electric motors and other facilities for industry; for the many electrical devices and appliances which have become essential to our urban and farm homes and to our agricultural production. Beyond this, it has made possible the de- velopment and expansion of new metallur- gical and chemical industries, which have gready increased the range of resources available to serve our people. In short, the stimulating effect of this power policy on our entire economy has vastly increased the strength of the Nation, both in its domestic affairs and in its world position. But in the face of this record of accom- plishment, the forces of private monopoly are today attacking this policy on many fronts, behind one of the most vicious propa- ganda barrages in history. Until recently, the power industry's prop- aganda campaign was largely aimed at the 201 [62] Mar. 13 Public Papers of the Presidents valley authority idea and at the yardstick concept in public power operations. The industry undertook to present figures, sta- tistics, and what-not to show that Govern- ment ventures in the power field were inefficient and wasteful. Then, suddenly, this propaganda line changed. It is easy to see why it changed. It wasn't convincing anybody, because it wasn't true. Millions of people including the members of rural electric cooperatives, could see by their own electricity bills that public power operations could be at least as efficient as private operations. The peo- ple were convinced, by concrete results, of the value of the Federal power program, and their representatives in Congress — who had learned at the polls how the people felt — repeatedly voted down every attack on that program. So the private power interests shifted to a new line of propaganda. They raised the cry of socialism — apparently on the theory that if you can't persuade people, maybe you can frighten them; if you haven't got the facts, try a few "scare" words. You can hardly pick up a newspaper or a magazine these days without seeing an expensive full-page advertisement denounc- ing the socialism of our public power pro- gram. Incidentally, the cost of these ads is mostly paid for by the taxpayers, because the costs of such advertising are deductible for income tax purposes. It looks to me as though that advertising campaign itself is pretty close to socialism, because the taxpay- ers finance so much of the cost. I want to say right here that this propa- ganda campaign is one of the most cynical and dangerous developments in many years. It is cynical because it assumes the people of this country cannot be trusted to decide on the basis of facts what is best for their own welfare. It assumes that the way to get things decided in a democracy is through big, expensive advertising campaigns in magazines and newspapers, and a big, ex- pensive lobby in Washington. This propaganda campaign is dangerous because it undermines faith in the free en- terprise system itself. People in this country are intelligent. They know what is good for them. They know that all the people ought to have a fair chance at the benefits of our great nat- ural resources, and they know that these benefits ought not to be monopolized by powerful private interests. If the people ever come to be persuaded that the free enterprise system means they have to pay tribute to private companies in order to enjoy the great natural resources that belong to all of us, then they are going to begin to be doubtful about the free enter- prise system itself. That is not what the free enterprise system means to me. But it seems to be what it means to the crowd that is back of this vicious propaganda campaign. It looks like these people are actually willing, in order to restore the privileges they had before 1933, to help destroy the very house in which they are living. I firmly believe that this propaganda cam- paign is bound to backfire in the end. But in the meantime, we have a hard, tough fight on our hands, against a concerted, nationwide drive to reverse a Federal power policy which has its roots in the very begin- nings of the conservation movement under President Theodore Roosevelt nearly half a century ago — a policy which has been strengthened and reaffirmed by the Congress of the United States time and time again in the last 20 years. This drive has the main purpose of restoring the unlimited right of private monopoly to exploit this Nation's water power resources. You can see examples all around the coun- try. The forces of reaction want to monop- olize St. Lawrence power at the bus bar, and even take over Niagara Falls itself for private development. They are trying to block the rural electric cooperatives in Missouri from tying together steam and hydro plants that will result in more power at lower cost. They are trying to grab the Hell's Canyon reservoir site on the Snake River — where public development would produce 600,000 202 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 15 [63] more kilowatts than private development. They are trying to prevent public bodies in the State of Washington, acting under laws supported time after time by the voters of that State, from buying power facilities that private companies are willing and eager to sell. The same campaign is being waged by the forces of reaction clear across the country. And we have to fight it every step of the way, just as we have had to fight for every gain made for the public interest in the last 20 years. For my part, I am determined to do every- thing I can to see that the policy of con- serving and developing our priceless water power resources for the public benefit shall go forward. I am sure that the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association will work hard for the same result. The coun- try needs the continued help of your orga- nization, which has done so much to make our power program effective. We have a good program. We can be proud of it, for it has met the test. With the support of the rural electric cooperatives, and other great progressive organizations, we will continue to advance until the right of every American to enjoy the full benefits of the age of electric power has been assured. note: The message was read at 10:15 a.m. to the annual convention in Chicago, 111., by Secretary of the Interior Oscar Chapman who was acting in the absence of the President. 63 Address in New York City at the Convention of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association. March 15, 1952 Dr. Murphy, distinguished guests, Mr. Mayor, delegates to the 29th Annual Con- vention of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association: You know, I was very much afraid that you were going to take that admonition of Dr. Murphy seriously, but I am very glad that you didn't — when he told you not to make any noise after the broadcast went on. I am happy to be with you today. It is a pleasure to talk to the young people who run the school papers of this great country of ours. You probably don't know it, but I was a school editor myself once of the high school paper in Independence, Mo. And it was a first edition, too. Charlie Ross, and four or five other kids and myself got out the first number of "The Gleam," named after the admonition in Tennyson's poem, "After it, follow it, Follow the gleam." I have been trying to follow it ever since. From then on I kept going, and you know the trouble that I am in today. So you see, if you are not very careful, you may end up by living in the White House, and I say to you that it is a wonderful experience indeed, in spite of all its troubles. All my life I have been interested in the Presidency, and the way Presidents are chosen. I remember very well the first presidential nominating convention that I attended. It was in Kansas City, Mo., in 1900, when Bryan was nominated the second time for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. I was 16, and I enjoyed that convention very much, because I thought old man Bryan was the greatest orator of the time. And I still think so. President Roosevelt said he was one of the great pro- gressives of our times, but he was ahead of his time. A lot of us are in that condition. Now, besides being nominated for the Presidency three times, Mr. Bryan became an editor. And you know, I am very much interested in editors and publishers. It is a very great responsibility to be the editor of a great newspaper, or a great periodical. And we have some wonderfully great maga- zines and newspapers in this country. It is the duty of the editors of those great publica- 203 [63] Mar. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents tions to see that the news is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And these great ones do just that. But we do have among us some publica- tions which do not care very much for the truth in the news, and sometimes make propaganda out of it, and then write edi- torials about it. But an editorial written on misrepresentation in the news and on propaganda is just as bad as the foundation on which it rests. I hope that if any of you become editors of great publications — and you are now edi- tors of great publications in your sphere — that you will stick stricdy to the truth and nothing but the truth when you publish the news. I heard Mr. Bryan say one time that the first convention he attended was at Phila- delphia in 1876, and he crawled in through a window, and that ever since that time they had been trying to put him out over the transom but never had succeeded. The first convention that I attended was the one I referred to in 1900, when I walked into that convention. I also later walked into the White House, which Mr. Bryan never did do. And I don't know who got the best of it, because Mr. Bryan got his message over just as well as if he had been elected President, and I don't know whether I am getting mine over or not. Another convention that I remember very well was the one at Baltimore when Wood- row Wilson was nominated. I was running a binder around a quarter section of land — took 2 miles to make that circuit. And at one corner there was a little telegraph sta- tion about a quarter-mile from where I was working, and I would get down and go over to the telegraph station to see how the con- vention was coming on. And that is how I found out that Woodrow Wilson had been nominated. Didn't have any radio or tele- vision in those days, and we didn't have any pollsters or false political prophets, either. I voted for Wilson that year, and I have believed ever since in the policies which he followed. He was one of our very greatest Presidents. And I sincerely believe that if we had followed him in what he wanted to do, we would certainly have avoided the Second World War. I hope that we will not make that same mistake after this last world war. Now I understand that a lot of people are mystified and wonder why I came all the way up here from Key West to talk to you today. The answer is very simple. I came be- cause the future of this great Republic of ours depends upon young people like you, and also for the reason that for the last 7 years young people have been coming to see me at the White House. There is hardly a week goes by that I don't see some dele- gation of young people, who pass through my office and shake hands with me, and I usually have a word or two to say to them. And now I am here, and you are in exacdy the same position you would be at the White House: You would have to listen. The United States of America is the great- est Republic in the history of the world. We want to keep it the greatest Republic. It will be up to you young people to do that job in the future. Youth, the hope of the world. That was the motto on the front door of the high school from which I was graduated, only it was written in Latin, Juventus Spes Mundi. I will never forget it. I never have for- gotten it, and I still think that youth is the hope of the world, and that they always will be. It is just as true now as it was when I came out of that smalltown high school. It is necessary for the young people to understand the road to be followed, if this country is to accomplish the mission which God intended it to accomplish in this world. I hope I can give you some idea of how to follow that road into tomorrow and the fu- ture of the world. I hope you will go back to your schools and talk about it and dis- cuss it. I hope you will write about it in your publications, because it is your respon- 204 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 15 [63] sibility as editors to work for the good of your great country, and for the future of the world. Both are in your hands. Now, the thing I want to impress upon you is that government must be operated on the basis of the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. That is the funda- mental basis of the domestic program and the foreign policy of this Government of yours and mine. No nation is good and can last unless it is built upon our ideals. Our Nation is built upon ideals — ideals of unselfishness and respect for the rights and welfare of others. The fundamental basis of this Nation's ideals was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The fundamental basis of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution comes from the teach- ings which we get from Exodus, St. Mat- thew, Isaiah, and St. Paul. The Sermon on the Mount gives us a way of life, and maybe some day men will understand it as the real way of life. The basis of all great moral codes is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Treat others as you would like to be treated. Some of you may think that such a philos- ophy as that has no place in politics and government. But it is the only philosophy on which you can base a lasting government. Governments built on that philosophy are built on a rock, and will not fail. When our own Government has looked after the average man first, we have grown and prospered. But when those in power have used our Government to increase the privileges of the few at the top, the life and spirit of our country have declined. Thank God most of the time we have been on the right road. In the lifetime of everyone here, we have had a chance to see how this works, al- though some of you may not be old enough — and I am sure none of you is old enough — to remember the great depression. In the last 20 years the Government of the United States has made great progress in measures to help and protect the average man. We have not been ashamed to work for human welfare at home and abroad. Now, I just want you to examine the facts and see for yourselves what the results have been in better living conditions for the American people, and in strengthening the base of our democracy. More and more people have been able to have better and better living conditions. In 1939 only one out of four families had an income of more than $2,000. In 1949 it was two out of three. There are fewer poor people and more well-to-do people in this country now than ever before — not only in this country but in the history of the world. We have been reducing inequality, not by pulling down those at the top, but by lifting up those at the bottom. This great record of progress is the result of our policy of the Fair Deal. Under that policy we look out for the other fellow as well as for ourselves. That same program applies to our foreign policy. We cannot isolate ourselves from our neighbors in the rest of the world. When something hurts them, it hurts us, when something helps them, it helps us. The way to keep our own country strong and prosperous is to encourage and develop prosperity in the rest of the world. We can learn a lot from the rest of the world. There are many things that even the people of undeveloped countries in the world can teach us. We must exchange ideas. We must exchange goods. We must exchange friendships. We are not imperialists. We do not want any more territory. We do not want to conquer any people, or to dominate them. The Russian propaganda says that we are imperialists and want to conquer the world. That just isn't true. We know the Soviet Government is a menace to us and to all the free world. That is why we are building up our strength, not to march against them but to discourage them from marching against us and the free world. We want to help the people in other coun- 205 [63] Mar. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents tries to help themselves, because that makes for prosperity for us all. I want you young people to understand that if we accomplish the purpose which we propose to accom- plish, it means the greatest age in the history of the world — you will live in the grandest and most peaceful time that the world has ever seen. It is up to you to help carry on that pur- pose. It may take more than one genera- tion to accomplish it. But we can accom- plish it. We are going to accomplish it, and I know that you will help to accomplish it. I appreciate again being here. May God bless you all. note: The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. In his opening words he referred to Joseph M. Murphy, director of the Columbia Scholastic Press Associa- tion at Columbia University, and Vincent R. Im- pellitteri, Mayor of New York City. There were over 3,000 editors and student jour- nalists in attendance, including delegates from 30 States and several foreign countries. 64 The President's News Conference at Key West. March 20, 1952 the president. Well, be seated everybody now, and we will start to work. I have no announcements to make. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them. [1.] Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President: They are still shooting, Mr. Pres- ident, and they can't hear very well. the president. I had better stand up. Now I think maybe you can hear better if I stand up. That's enough. Turn out the lights. All right, now! [2.] Q. Mr. President, we talked with Mr. McKinney yesterday. I just wonder if what he told us accurately reflects your views about the effect the Korean developments will have on whether you run again? 1 the president. Korea enters not into the politics of this country at all. Q. Mr. President, I didn't hear that. the president. I say Korea does not enter into the politics of this country at all. Has no bearing whatever on what I may decide to do. [3.] Q. Mr. President, did you favor a loan to Soviet Russia in 1946, as Henry *At a news conference held in Key West, Fla., on March 19, Frank E. McKinney, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, stated that it was his belief that President Truman would not seek renomination if he attained permanent peace in Korea. Wallace 2 said the other day? the president. In 1945 I favored one, but not in 1946. Q. Here is another related question, Mr. President. If the Government was con- sidering a Russian loan as late as 1945, isn't it illogical for the congressional committees to try to stigmatize some of the witnesses for not foreseeing a menace in 1930? the president. I do not care to comment on congressional committees. It might not be printable. [4.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to put the public — the papers that are in the book "Mr. President" 3 in the public do- main? the president. Repeat the question. I didn't hear it. Q. Are you going to give the papers you used, your own writings and other papers that appear in the book "Mr. President," to the public domain? the president. I have no comment. Q. Mr. President, could you tell me whether you have a right to do so? the president. I have no comment. [5.] Q. Mr. President, in view of Mr. McKinney 's press conference yesterday, do 2 Former Vice President of the United States and former Secretary of Commerce. 3 William Hillman, "Mr. President" (New York: Farrar, Straus and Young, 1952, 253 pp.). 206 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 20 [64] you have anything on Korea that you can tell us as to developments? the president. I have never commented on Korea at a press conference, and I can't start it now. I have told you, I think, that any comments from me back here might upset the applecart, and they should not be made. Q. You are speaking now specifically of the truce negotiations ? the president. Whatever goes on over in Korea, or any other foreign place around the world. [6.] Q. Mr. President, will you let the Chelf4 subcommittee have the income tax returns of Howard McGrath? 5 the president. The request hasn't reached me yet. I will answer that question when- ever the request reaches me. [7.] Q. Mr. President, we in Key West are very interested in knowing if you are going to come back here next fall for your 1 2th working vacation? the president. I hope to come back. Q. Do you expect to be here next spring, Mr. President? [Laughter'] the president. I'll tell you what I will do, I will answer that next fall. {Laughter] Q. Mr. President, you said you would answer that next fall. You mean after the election? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. That means you will be interested in the election ? the president. Not necessarily. [8.] Q. Mr. President, since we saw you last, there have been some interesting polit- ical developments in New Hampshire and also in Minnesota. I wonder if you could give us your reaction to those two pri- maries? the president. I have no comment on either one of them. [9.] Q. Mr. President, Walter Lipp- mann 6 says it is now your duty to bring General Eisenhower back.7 Do you concur in that interpretation ? the president. My duty is to see that we attain our objective in Europe. Gen- eral Eisenhower is the keyman in attaining that objective, and he understands the situa- tion, I think, very much better than Walter Lippmann or anybody else. Q. Mr. President, doesn't the fact that General Eisenhower has delegates pledged for him make him more of a politician than a military man now? the president. In my book he is a mili- tary man, and is doing a military job in a very able and efficient manner. I am not interested in his political career. He has a perfect right to do whatever he pleases in that line, and I told him that personally. Q. Mr. President, Mr. Short told us the other day that what you told us before still stands, that you won't relieve him except at his personal request? the president. General Eisenhower is in the midst of a very important job. He un- derstands what the situation is in Europe much better than I do from this distance. I have told him that he can use his own judg- ment with regard to his return. Whenever he feels that it is proper and safe for him to return, he is at liberty to do so. Q. Mr. President, was the statement made to the General in the light of his possible political involvements or associations, what- ever they may be? the president. It was confined entirely to his military engagements. And his political associations are his own business. Q. Mr. President, how do you think Ike is doing as a politician these days? the president. I can't comment on that, for I don't know. 4 Representative Frank L. Chelf of Kentucky, chairman of a Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. See also Items 60, 91. 8 Attorney General J. Howard McGrath. 6 Walter Lippmann of the New York Herald- Tribune. 7 General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower was serving as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers Europe. 207 [64] Mar. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Mr. President, you said that General Eisenhower is at liberty to return whenever it is safe in his judgment. What would the formality be? Would he still write to you and ask for a recall? the president. General Eisenhower is at liberty to make a report to the Secretary of Defense whenever he deems it necessary, and if he wants to make it in person, he is at liberty to do that. That is customary, always. [10.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. McKinney said that he hoped to have an answer from you sometime within 60 to 90 days in ad- vance of the convention, and he thinks you will let him know before May 15th. Is that the president. Tony,8 all you fellows have been trying to set a date for me. And I will set my own date. And I will let you know in plenty of time so that you can have all the arrangements made for headlines, and everything that's necessary in that case. But I will set the date myself. Q. He had said that, that's the reason I asked. [Laughter] the president. Well, you boys have said it, too, time and again. [n.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it is going to be an open convention as Mr. McKinney suggests? the president. Well, I can't answer that until I announce what I am going to do my- self.9 Of course, if I am interested in it, it will not be an open convention. Q. If you announce? What was that last, sir? the president. I said if I announced for the nomination it will not be an open con- vention. [Laughter] Q. It will not be an open convention. That's what I thought. [Laughter] the president. There never has been an open convention whenever the President made up his mind that he wanted the nomination. Q. Well, I just wanted to get that point clear, that was all, sir. the president. That's all right. [12.] I want to ask you a question. I want to know if all you people who are having a vacation the same as I am, are enjoying it, and if you are behaving your- selves while you are having it? [Laughter] Q. State that in two parts. the president. Smitty,10 you always speak for the people by saying "thank you." Q. I have seen nothing but perfect decorum. the president. That's the answer to the second part of the question. [Laughter] I don't know whether that would contrib- ute- Q. Thoroughly enjoyable. the president. 1 don't know whether that would contribute to your enjoyment or not. Q. It has its limitations. [ 13.] Q. Mr. President, even if you don't run, will it be an open convention — will you not have a great deal to say about the the president. Well, when I decide to make the announcement on the subject, I will let you know about that, too. Q. I am talking generally. Did you ever see an open convention, where a group did not control it? the president. I have not in my recol- lection seen one. Q. You will have a great deal to say about your successor, if you do not run? the president. Well, I wouldn't want to make that statement flady, unless I decide to run myself, and then I will have a lot to say about it. Q. I mean disregarding that? the president. I will answer the ques- tion when the proper time comes. [14.] Q. Mr. President, on another sub- ject, have you heard anything direcdy from the Wage Stabilization Board on the steel situation? 11 8 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 9 On March 29 the President announced that he would not seek reelection (see Item 69). 10Merriman Smith of the United Press Associa- tions. n See Item 82. 208 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 24 [65] the president. No, I have not. They are still in conference. Q. Have you heard anything to encourage you one way or the other about it? the president. I can't make any state- ments, because they are holding a conference this morning on the subject. As soon as they are ready to report to me, they will, and I will let you know the results. [15.] Q. Mr. President, will Newbold Morris stay on the job without subpoena powers? 12 the president. Yes. I am sorry he did not get those powers, because they would contribute to the efficiency of his work, and I think he ought to be allowed to have a chance to do the job. Q. Mr. President, I don't know whether you have been asked this question before, but in a radio broadcast recendy Newbold Morris said that if he had been President he wouldn't have appointed Major General Vaughan or Bill O'Dwyer.13 Have you any comment on that? the president. No comment on that. [16.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. McKinney also said yesterday that he doubted whether your announcement would come by the time of the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. Could 12 See Items 35 [15,36,44 [10]. 13Maj. Gen. Harry H. Vaughan, Military Aide to the President, and William O'Dwyer, U.S. Am- bassador to Mexico. you say anything about that? the president. I have no comment on that. I told you when I answered Tony's question, I think, that I would make the announcement when I got good and ready, and it will be at my time and behest. [17.] Q. Mr. President, the boys on the base are getting a little nervous. They want to know when they are going to get the pay raise. the president. What pay raise? Q. Armed Forces pay raise. the president. I don't know. I can't answer the question. I recommended it. [18.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on Jimmy Byrnes' remarks about your memo? 14 the president. No comment. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. All right. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- seventh news conference was held in the Press Room of Bachelor Officers Quarters No. 128 at the United States Naval Base, Key West, Fla., at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 20, 1952. "Governor James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Secretary of State, denied the allegation in William Hillman's book "Mr. President" that Pres- ident Truman had read to him on January 5, 1946, a memo criticizing Mr. Byrnes' failure to re- port to the President on the Moscow conference. Governor Byrnes stated that had such a memo been read to him at the time, he would have resigned his post as Secretary of State. 65 Special Message to the Congress on Aid for Refugees and Displaced Persons. March 24, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: One of the gravest problems arising from the present world crisis is created by the overpopulation in parts of Western Europe, aggravated by the flight and expulsion of people from the oppressed countries of East- ern Europe. This problem is of great practical impor- tance to us because it affects the peace and security of the free world. It is also of great concern to us, because of our long- established humanitarian traditions. The Congress has recognized the importance of this problem and has already enacted some legislation to help meet it. I ask the Con- gress to give early and favorable considera- tion to additional legislation to make more adequate provision for meeting this situa- tion. Specifically, I ask the Congress to authorize a program that will: (1) Provide aid for the unfortunate vic- 209 [65] Mar. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents tims of oppression who are escaping from communist tyranny behind the Iron Curtain, (2) Continue our participation in the international effort now being made to assist in the migration and resettlement through- out the world of a substantial number of persons from the overpopulated areas of Western Europe, and (3) Authorize additional immigration into this country, on a limited basis, to aid in alleviating the problems created by com- munist tyranny and overpopulation in Western Europe. The solution to these problems cannot, and should not, be the responsibility of any one nation. It is an international responsi- bility— an integral part of the world crisis which the free nations must meet together. It demands the cooperative efforts of all in- terested countries. But a real solution can be found only if the United States does its part. We have done our part in the past — we must not falter now. World War II left in its wake a tremen- dous upheaval of populations in the countries of Europe. To meet the situation, this country took the lead in establishing the International Refugee Organization, which provided care and protection for displaced persons and made possible the migration of more than one million of them to 48 .coun- tries throughout the free world. As our own contribution to the common effort, the Congress in 1948 enacted the Displaced Persons Act and subsequently amended and extended it. Both the Con- gress and the American people have every right to be proud of the achievements made under this farsighted humanitarian legis- lation. The Displaced Persons Act is now ap- proaching the termination date fixed by the Congress. When operations under this law have been finished, almost 400,000 vic- tims of tyranny will have been resettled in the United States. The first major phase of the program was completed with the issuance of practically all of the 341,000 visas authorized to be issued by midnight, December 31, 195 1. In addition, the Con- gress authorized the admission of 54,744 Germans who had fled or been driven from areas east of the Iron Curtain. There is every likelihood that the remaining visas for these German expellees will be issued ahead of the June 30, 1952, deadline set by the Congress. The job has been well done by the Dis- placed Persons Commission and other coop- erating agencies of the Government. Much of the success of the program is due to the vital work accomplished by private volun- tary agencies, representing our major reli- gious faiths and nationality groups, and by the State Commissions appointed by the Governors of 34 States. These organiza- tions of citizens have contributed their ef- forts and resources to resettling the greater part of the displaced persons admitted to this country. Without them, and without the goodwill and cooperative response of thousands of American families and church groups, this great program could never have been carried out. Thus, by doing our own share and by acting together with the other countries of the free world, we have been dealing suc- cessfully with the major dislocations caused by Hitler's policies of brutality and aggres- sion. But the movement of large masses of dis- tressed people across international bound- aries is by no means over. Communist tyranny has taken up where Hitler's brutal- ity left off. We are, therefore, now turning our attention to the innocent and unhappy victims of communist oppression. Throughout the Soviet dominated area of central and eastern Europe, the communist regimes are increasing their repressive meas- ures. Some of the enslaved people are man- aging to escape to the West. Some fifteen to twenty thousand Germans are slipping over the border from the Soviet Zone of Germany and crossing into Western Ger- many every month. From the communist countries to the south and east the move- ment to free Europe is much smaller, but 210 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 24 [65] still they come, at the risk of their lives, past border guards and through mine fields. There are about 18,000 of these people al- ready West of the Iron Curtain, and they are coming in at the rate of about 1,000 a month. The people in all these groups come into areas where, for the most part, the local economy is unable to support the population already there. Western Germany, for ex- ample, is overcrowded with almost nine mil- lion people of German ethnic origin who were driven there from Eastern Europe after the war. Trieste, which is receiving many of those escaping from the satellites, is badly overcrowded. Italy is struggling with very serious problems of overpopula- tion and is urgently trying to resettle large numbers of its people overseas. Greece faces great difficulty in absorbing the refu- gees of Greek origin who are being driven out of the Balkan satellites by the commu- nists. Thus, the brutal policies of Soviet tyranny are aggravating overcrowded con- ditions which are already a danger to the stability of these free nations. This in general terms is the nature of the problem that now confronts free Europe. The Congress is aware of the importance of this problem for the free world and the security of the United States. Congres- sional enactments and appropriations re- cently enabled the United States to take the lead in establishing the Provisional Inter- Governmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe, which 17 govern- ments have already joined. This organiza- tion is already at work providing overseas transportation for migrants from areas of overpopulation to lands where more people are needed. We are taking part in the work of this organization and have contributed ten mil- lion dollars to its operation. The organiza- tion has taken over the fleet of ships for- merly operated by the International Refugee Organization. The legal authority to participate in this organization is contained in the Mutual Security Act of 195 1. This authority should be extended, and the Congress should make provision for continuing our financial con- tribution to this work for the next fiscal year. This is of great importance, but much more needs to be done. In the first place, specific aid and assist- ance should be provided for the people who are fleeing at the risk of their lives from Southern and Eastern Europe. These peo- ple are Baits, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Hun- garians, Bulgarians, Rumanians, Albanians, Ukrainians, and Russians. These people face a desperate situation. Not only do they arrive destitute, with only what they can carry on their backs, but they find themselves in totally strange lands among strange peoples speaking strange languages. The local authorities do not have adequate resources to care for them properly. These people need better care when they first arrive and they need assist- ance if they are to move on and resettle elsewhere. The miserable conditions in which these fugitives from communism find themselves, and their present inability to emigrate to new homes and start new lives, lead inevi- tably to despair. Their disillusionment is being effectively exploited by communist propaganda. These men and women are friends of freedom. They include able and courageous fighters against communism. They ask only for an opportunity to play a useful role in the fight for freedom. It is the responsibility of the free world to afford them this opportunity. The need is well recognized, both in Europe and in this country. Private wel- fare organizations of American citizens, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish, have been working hard to help these people. Last year, these organizations spent substantial amounts for their care and resettlement. These organizations will continue their efforts this year. But the need is greater than they can handle. First of all, these fugitives from commu- nism need supplemental care and mainte- 211 [65] Mar. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents nance after they arrive in Western Europe. Local governments and private relief orga- nizations give a minimum amount of this type of aid, but their resources are inade- quate. Additional food, better shelter, clothing, medical care, legal advice and other kinds of material assistance are needed. These people also need assistance in fi- nancing overseas transportation. The new international migration organization and the American private relief agencies can and do help with this, but a concerted effort is needed to give these people an equal op- portunity to share in the migration program. At present, because of inadequate resources, it is these fugitives from communism who have the greatest difficulty in arranging for overseas migration. If funds were provided, and an adequate administrative organiza- tion set up, these people would have a better chance to migrate. I am convinced that we must help these people. Therefore, acting under the au- thority of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, I am authorizing the Director for Mutual Security to go forward with a limited pro- gram of assistance in this fiscal year. Four million three hundred thousand dollars will be allocated for this purpose. This program will help alleviate the condition of these people in the countries to which they escape and will enable many of them to move out of Europe. The funds that are being made available will supplement — but not in any sense supersede — the efforts now being made both by the governments of the countries where these people have sought refuge and by private American organizations. Supplemental care and overseas migration do not, however, constitute all that should be done for those who escape from Eastern Europe. A substantial number of them want to stay in Europe and should have the chance to do so. They should be wel- comed in Western Europe and given the opportunity to make their individual con- tributions to the free world. Many of them will need further education or training so they can prepare themselves for useful and productive work in the North Adantic community. I urge the Congress, therefore, to provide clear and adequate authority for the coming fiscal year — together with the necessary funds — so that the program of assistance we are now starting for the refugees from com- munism can be carried forward and strengthened along the lines that I have mentioned here. In addition to these types of aid, the op- portunity for military service may provide an answer to the problems of a small number of these refugees. Some of these people will be able to enlist in the United States armed forces overseas, under Public Law 597, the so-called Lodge Act of 1950. So far, however, only a handful have been al- lowed to do this. Security screening re- quirements have necessarily been high, since each person under the provisions of the Lodge Act is a potential United States citi- zen. Another type of military service for these people is authorized under section 101(A)(1) of the Mutual Security Act of 1 95 1, which provides that they can be formed into elements of the military forces supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- nization. The question of forming such units presents great administrative and political difficulties, but it has been receiving careful study. Even if it proves possible, however, to create such units, military service could utilize only a relatively small number of these people, and would not eliminate the need for additional measures to use their skills and energies in civilian life. Such, in brief, are the measures that can help to alleviate the problems of these fugitives from Soviet terror. But these problems, important as they are, are over- shadowed by the need for increasing migra- tion from the overcrowded areas of Europe. Overpopulation is one of the major fac- tors preventing the fullest recovery of those countries where it exists. It is a serious drag on the economies of nations belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A solution to this problem, therefore, be- 212 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 24 [65] comes vitally necessary to strengthen the defense of the North Atlantic Community. Our common defense requires that we make the best possible use not only of the material resources of the free world but of our human resources as well. Men and women who cannot be productively em- ployed in the free countries of Europe be- cause of conditions there are a net loss to the strength of the free world. In other countries, where they are needed, these same people could add to the output and growing power of the free nations. But left in idle- ness as they now are, wasted and hopeless, they become an easy prey to the demagogues of totalitarianism, both right and left. The bulk of the emigration needed will have to be taken care of by countries other than the United States. Some of the free nations, particularly those with large un- setded areas or undeveloped resources, have a pressing need for large numbers of im- migrants to build up their countries and increase their production. Canada and Aus- tralia, for example, have already initiated substantial programs of immigration. The Australian immigration program calls for an annual immigration of at least 150,000 persons per year. Canadian absorption in the last year was at the rate of 180,000. Additional opportunities for migrants are opening up, although more slowly, in the Republics of Central and South America. But the United States can and should take some of the migrants now available in Europe. One of the reasons we lead the free world today is that we are a nation of immigrants. We have been made strong and vigorous by the diverse skills and abili- ties of the different peoples who have migrated to this country and become Ameri- can citizens. Past immigration has helped to build our tremendous industrial power. Today, our growing economy can make ef- fective use of additional manpower in var- ious areas and lines of work. The rapid expansion of our industry and the enlargement of our defense forces, have increased the demands on our available man- power reserves. Our industry can readily absorb a limited number of skilled and trained personnel in the years immediately ahead. In our agriculture particularly, we have a need for additional people. Farm operators and farm workers are essential in our de- fense effort. Since 1949, there has again been a downward trend in the farm popula- tion of the United States. With the resump- tion of the movement from the farms to the cities, there is a real danger that in the years just ahead our agricultural production may be seriously hampered. A rich pool of surplus farmers and farm workers exists in the overpopulated areas of Western Europe. Among the expellees in Western Germany there are many agricul- tural families with no opportunity for em- ployment on the land. In Italy and the Netherlands, too, there are large groups of agricultural workers who cannot find pro- ductive employment on the limited arable land available. Besides farm workers, our experience under the Displaced Persons Act has demon- strated that we can obtain from Europe some trained factory workers, engineers, scientific technicians, and other kinds of specially qualified people whose skills can be put to good use in our economy. I am convinced that we should welcome to this country a number of those who now must emigrate from Europe. We should do this, not only in our own self-interest, but also as a way to reaffirm the great tradi- tion of freedom and opportunity which we have proved in our own experience to be the surest path of progress and prosperity. In considering the steps to be taken, we should measure the needs of the distressed people in Europe against our own capacity to make good use of additional manpower, and the extent of our international respon- sibilities. The problem we face is in the nature of an emergency. This emergency can be of limited duration, if we of the free world act wisely and resolutely. The plight of the refugees in Europe and the demands 55-672—66 213 [65] Mar. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents of our national defense are both related to the threat of communist aggression. When that threat wanes, there will be less need for extraordinary measures. But while it persists, we should move promptly and effec- tively to meet it. The existing immigration laws are inade- quate— both in general and as regards this special problem. The Displaced Persons Act will end this year, and we will be thrown back on the quota system of immigration. So far as the people escaping from commu- nism are concerned, many of them will be completely blocked from coming to this country because their quotas have been "mortgaged" under the Displaced Persons Act, for many years in the future. For ex- ample, half of the Latvian quota has been mortgaged ahead three centuries to the year 2274, the Estonian quota through the year 2146, the Lithuanian quota through the year 2087, and the Polish quota through the year 2000. Furthermore, under present law we will be unable to make any substantial contribu- tion to meeting the problem of overpopula- tion in Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, or Greece. In the latter countries, for exam- ple, where the need is particularly acute, we can admit annually only 5,677 Italians and 310 Greeks under the law as it now stands. To meet the present emergency, we should enlarge the numbers of immigrants that can be taken in from all these critical areas. I ask the Congress to authorize the admission of some 300,000 additional persons over a three year period. This would include, on an annual basis: (1) 7,000 religious and political refugees from communism in eastern Europe; (2) 7,500 Greek nationals from Greece; (3) 7,500 Dutch from the Netherlands; (4) 39,000 Italians from Italy and Trieste; and (5) 39>ooo Germans and persons of Ger- man ethnic origin. Immigration in these amounts and from these sources could readily be absorbed in this country, and together with a far larger volume of immigration to other free coun- tries, would go a long way toward solving the emergency problem in Europe. While the admission of these particular groups should constitute a temporary pro- gram of limited duration, it could well be fitted into desirable permanent changes in our present immigration quota system if the Congress finds itself able to make such changes at this session. Our present quota system is not only in- adequate to meet present emergency needs, it is also an obstacle to the development of an enlightened and satisfactory immigration policy for the long-run future. If our quotas were revised and made more flexible, they could probably be utilized to take care of most or all of the immigration re- quired to meet the present emergency sit- uation. The balance, if any, could be admitted without reference to quota num- bers. These are considerations that the Congress will wish to keep in mind when it takes up the question of improving our overall immigration laws. It is most important to remember, how- ever, that action to meet the emergency problem is needed this year. If the Con- gress cannot agree at this session on desir- able improvements in our whole system of immigration that would take care of the emergency problem, it should act to take care of the emergency directly. In no event should this vital emergency program be tied to or associated with restrictive changes in our permanent immigration laws — changes which would in themselves hamper or nul- lify the operation of the emergency program. In addition to this emergency three-year program, I recommend that steps be taken to alleviate an unfortunate situation arising under the operation of the Displaced Persons Act. Although all visas authorized for dis- placed persons were issued, some 7,500 of them were lost because the persons to whom they were granted did not actually come to the United States. On the other hand, a number of persons who were seeking ad- mission under the Act, and whose applica- 214 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 24 [66] tions were under consideration, were unable to obtain visas prior to the time the author- ity to issue such visas expired on December 31, 1 95 1. A substantial portion of these applicants were admissible under the stand- ards of the Act, and would have made as good immigrants as those already admitted. The voluntary agencies or individual citi- zens have given the assurances necessary for the admission of these persons. There is still place for them in the United States. It seems unjust and unwise to deprive them of the opportunity for which they are quali- fied. Seven thousand five hundred visas should be ample to take care of the displaced persons in this category. I recommend that the Congress authorize up to that number of visas for them. In carrying out this proposal, and the three-year emergency program as well, we should follow the lessons of the successful experience we have had under the Displaced Persons Act. The same kind of provision should be made, for example, for security safeguards with respect to those admitted to this country, for means to effect their settlement here on a wide geographic basis, and for safeguards against displacement of United States citizens from housing or em- ployment. And similarly, as under the Displaced Persons Act, there should be no religious, racial or other discrimination in the selection of the immigrants. With respect to the financing of the emer- gency three-year program, however, the situation is rather different from that under the Displaced Persons Act, where transpor- tation was financed through Government funds. Except for the refugees from communism, the people from the overpopulated areas, who constitute the bulk of the migrants to be admitted, are in a better financial posi- tion than the displaced persons of former years. They are not stateless, or dependent wholly on charity. Their countries are in- terested in seeing them migrate and can be called on to help with the expense of getting them started. The migrants themselves can be asked to repay the cost of their overseas transportation, once they have resetded. Some of them have assets of their own which can be used. While it may be advisable to provide a source of funds to be loaned to these migrants to pay for their passage, the net additional cost to this Government of transporting the people from the overpopu- lated areas should be small. The years through which we are passing are tragic years for many people. We are faced with extraordinary problems which demand extraordinary solutions. The prob- lem of the refugees from communist tyranny and that of overpopulation in Western Europe are matters of practical concern to the entire free world. To us in America, whose most basic belief is in the inherent worth of the human individual, these prob- lems present a challenge as well as a respon- sibility. The programs I have here recommended are designed to meet the challenge and accept the responsibility. I hope that the Congress will give them prompt and favorable consideration. Harry S. Truman note: See also Item 66. 66 Letter to Committee Chairmen Concerning a Program in Aid of Fugitives From Communism. March 24, 1952 [ Released March 24, 1952. Dated March 22, 1952 ] that it will contribute to the defense of the North Atlantic area and to the security of the United States to initiate a program to improve the reception and treatment and to My dear Mr. : In compliance with Section 101(a)(1) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, I hereby notify you that I have today determined 215 [66] Mar. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents secure the resettlement of qualified people who escape from the Iron Curtain area. This program will supplement, but in no sense supersede, the efforts now being made by the countries bordering on the Iron Cur- tain area which carry the main responsibility for taking care of these people. This program has been recommended to me by the Director for Mutual Security with the concurrence of the agencies concerned. It is their estimate that approximately $4,300,000 of funds appropriated under Title I of the Mutual Security Act will be required for the calendar year 1952 to fund this program, which together with $2,900,000 planned to be obtained from other sources including counterpart and privately con- tributed funds, will make possible the carry- ing out of this program. Representatives of the Executive Branch are prepared, at your convenience, to pro- vide you and your Committee colleagues personally with further information about this program if desired. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text o£ identical letters addressed to the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Honor- able James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chair- man of the House Armed Services Committee. See also Item 65. For the President's statement upon signing the Mutual Security Act of 1951, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 250. 67 Letter to Committee Chairmen Enumerating Continuing Powers, Functions, and Responsibilities of the Director for Mutual Security. March 27, 1952 1. Creation of a corporation (section 104(d)). 2. Consultation with the Secretary of State in the specific manner prescribed in section 105(b). 3. Consultation between the chief of the special mission and the chief of the United States diplomatic mission in the specific manner prescribed in section 109(b). 4. Guarantee of investments in enterprises producing or distributing informational media (section 111(b)(3)). 5. Procurement and increased production in participating countries, under sections ii5(i)(i) and 117(a), of materials which are required by the United States as a result of deficiencies or potential deficiencies in the resources within the United States; and purchase, under section 115(^(2), of stra- tegic and critical materials in any participat- ing country. 6. Promotion and development of travel My dear : Pursuant to section 502(c) of the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (P.L. 165, 82d Cong., 1 st sess., approved October 10, 1951), I hereby inform the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate (Committee on For- eign Affairs of the House of Representa- tives) that I have found that, except as hereinafter set forth, all of the powers, func- tions, and responsibilities transferred to the Director for Mutual Security by subsection (b)(2) of section 502 of said act are neces- sary to enable the Director for Mutual Secu- rity, after June 30, 1952, to carry out the duties conferred upon him by section 503 of said act. Powers, functions, and responsibilities under the Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, as amended, with respect to the fol- lowing are not necessary to enable the said Director, after June 30, 1952, to carry out the duties so conferred upon him: 2l6 Harry S. Truman, igp Mar. 28 [68] by citizens of the United States to and within participating countries (section 117(b)). 7. Payment of ocean freight charges of relief supplies and packages (section 117(c)). The findings under section 502(c) have been framed in terms of a specification of powers to be discontinued rather than pow- ers to be continued. This approach has been adopted because by the enactment of section 503 the Congress has already limited the range of the Director's responsibilities with respect to the activities of the Mutual Security Agency, thereby anticipating the action which had originally been contem- plated would result from the finding under section 502(c). The Congress, in the Mutual Security Act, reaffirmed the proposition that the mutual security efforts of the free world should not fail because some cooperating countries cannot now provide all the physical and financial resources required for defense mo- bilization. The Mutual Security Agency already has adjusted its programs and orga- nization, and has curtailed some functions and modified others in order to direct its full effort to the objectives of the mutual security program. Under section 502(b) (2) of the act, however, the Mutual Security Agency now is using to support mutual de- fense the same major powers and functions which originally were needed to assist eco- nomic recovery. This experience has shown that the basic powers of the Economic Co- operation Act, appropriately redirected to- ward the new objectives, are necessary to enable the Director for Mutual Security after June 30, 1952, to carry out his responsibilities under section 503 of the Mutual Security Act. Those provisions of the Economic Cooperation Act which are not required for this purpose are set forth in the above finding. Although the Mutual Security Agency's authority to subsidize relief shipments and to make guarantees of informational media investments will be discontinued, it is es- sential that these activities be carried on after June 30, 1952. There has been sub- mitted for the consideration of the Congress as a part of the 1953 mutual security legis- lation a request for authority and funds which would permit the President to desig- nate any department or agency of the Gov- ernment to carry on the function of subsidiz- ing relief shipments. At an early date there also will be submitted for the consideration of the Congress a request for authority to enable the Government to continue the work of guaranteeing investments in informational media enterprises. I am enclosing for your information copies of a report relating to the foregoing prepared by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and to the Honorable James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. For the President's statement upon signing the Mutual Security Act of 1951, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 250. The report prepared by the Director, Bureau of the Budget (8 pp., mimeographed) was also released. 68 Special Message to the Congress on Absentee Voting by Members of the Armed Forces. March 28, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: About 2,500,000 men and women in the armed forces are of voting age at the present time. Many of those in uniform are serving overseas, or in parts of the country distant from their homes. They are unable to re- turn to their States either to register or to vote. Yet these men and women, who are serving their country and in many cases risking their lives, deserve above all others to exercise the right to vote in this election year. At a time when these young people 217 [68] Mar. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents are defending our country and its free in- stitutions, the least we at home can do is to make sure that they are able to enjoy the rights they are being asked to fight to preserve. All of us agree that the men and women in our armed services ought to be able to exercise the right to vote. Yet there are many barriers in the way. Traditionally, procedures for voting have been laid down by the States, not only in State elections but also in elections to Fed- eral office. There are many variations among State laws on voting. In some States, absentee voting is either impossible or is encumbered with such difficult procedural requirements that it is of little value to per- sons in military service. The resulting patch-work quilt of complicated and conflict- ing regulations has, in the past, deprived many of our service people of the chance to vote. Efforts were made during World War II to improve and standardize procedures. Many State laws were passed to facilitate voting by persons in the services, and the Congress intervened to confirm the right of service people to vote in Federal elections, to provide simpler procedures for obtaining ballots for persons overseas, and, in some cases, to provide a Federal ballot to be used when State ballots could not be used. As a result, over 2% million of the 9 million persons of voting age in the armed forces voted in 1944. The record was not good, but it was better than it is likely to be this year, unless prompt action is taken. In many States, the laws which facilitated voting in 1944 have now expired. Since 1942, Federal Statutes have affirmed the right of absent service people to vote with- out registering in person, but even this basic right may be ignored in some States this year unless vigorous action is taken. Recognizing that the situation required careful examination, I requested the Amer- ican Political Science Association on Octo- ber 23, 195 1, to make a special study of voting in the armed forces, reviewing the history of Federal and State laws and proce- dures on the subject, "to be sure that we have a completely effective program for voting in the armed services." The Amer- ican Political Science Association set up a Special Committee on Service Voting, com- posed of qualified experts, which conducted a comprehensive inquiry. The results of their study and their recommendations are embodied in their report to me, which I am transmitting, with this message, to the Congress. In this report, the Special Committee of the American Political Science Association has set forth a Servicemen's Bill of Voting Rights, which I believe is so sound and right that it deserves the support of the Congress and the country: "We believe that all servicemen of voting age, whether in the United States or over- seas, should have the right: "1. To vote without registering in person. "2. To vote without paying a poll tax. "3. To vote without meeting unreason- able residence requirements. "4. To vote without meeting unreason- able literacy and educational requirements. "5. To use the Federal postcard applica- tion for a ballot. "6. To receive ballots for primary and general elections in time to vote. "7. To be protected in the free exercise of their voting rights. "8. To receive essential information con- cerning candidates and issues. "9. To receive essential information con- cerning the methods by which the right to vote may be exercised. "10. To receive essential information on the duty of 'citizens in uniform' to defend our democratic institutions by using, rather than ignoring, their voting rights." In contrast to these standards, there are twenty-four of our States — exactly half — in which many of our soldiers, sailors and air- men will be unable to vote effectively and easily in 1952. Seven of these States appear 2l8 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 28 [681 to have laws that are in conflict with the provisions of the Servicemen's Voting Act of 1946. These States either make no pro- vision at all for absentee voting, or require registration by servicemen in person. In addition, there are seventeen States in which the statutory interval permitted between the sending out of the absentee ballots and the time when the ballots must be returned is so short that it will deprive service people overseas of a decent chance to get their ballots back on time. The report I am transmitting to the Con- gress recommends ways of overcoming these defects, either through special action by State legislatures, or through more efficient and flexible administration of State laws, or through court action. It also recommends that the States take action to permit voting by spouses and dependents of persons serv- ing in the armed forces, and by other civil- ians serving overseas. I hope all State officials concerned will take these recom- mendations to heart, and do all they can to improve the situation in their respective States. The best and most effective way to assure our service people of their right to vote is through State action. Some of the recommendations of the re- port are directed at the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and are de- signed particularly to strengthen the admin- istration of soldier voting in the Department of Defense. I am sending the report to the Secretary of Defense, requesting him to con- sider these recommendations, to act on them where possible, and to report progress to me. The Department of Defense has the impor- tant duty, not only to facilitate voting, but also to see to it that the information that service voters receive is presented in a com- pletely fair and non-partisan manner. The members of the Congress will be par- ticularly interested in the recommendations made for Federal legislation. The Com- mittee recommends a long-range program which will encourage service voting, pro- vide adequate voting information to service people, and require regular reports to the Congress on the manner and extent of sol- dier voting. As a first step, the Committee recom- mends that the Congress continue in effect existing statutory provisions affirming the right of service people to vote. These pro- visions, which are contained in the first two sections of the Servicemen's Voting Act of 1946, are, by their terms, effective only "in time of war", and will therefore lapse when the Peace Treaty with Japan comes into effect. I have already called this problem to the attention of the Congress in my com- munication to the Vice President and the Speaker of the House concerning the pro- posed Emergency Powers Extension Act. In addition, the Committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense report bien- nially to the Congress, commencing in Jan- uary, 1953, on action taken by the respective States in carrying out the Servicemen's Vot- ing Act. The Committee further recom- mends that the Secretary of Defense, in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census and the several States, be required to com- pile and publish statistical reports on the number of applications and executed ballots received from servicemen in each State, as well as the number of servicemen of voting age in each State. Such information will serve as a basis for improving existing laws and procedures in the light of experience. In order to acquaint servicemen with their voting privileges and responsibilities, the Committee recommends legislative support for an effective information and education program designed to bring to absent service- men some of the voting information avail- able to all citizens in their own communities. With one dissent, the report of the Com- mittee recommends the use of a Federal ballot this year in those cases where State laws are not sufficiendy improved in time to give soldiers from those States the right to vote. There are administrative and legal difficulties in the use of a Federal ballot, and our experience with it under the cumber- 219 [68] Mar. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents some procedures set up by the Federal law of 1944 was not encouraging, but the find- ings of the Committee point out ways of avoiding some of the difficulties experienced in that year. I agree with the Committee that, in spite of the obvious difficulties in the use of the Federal ballot, the Congress should not shrink from accepting its responsibility and exercising its constitutional powers to give soldiers the right to vote where the States fail to do so. Of course, if prompt action is taken by the States, as it should be, it may be possible to avoid the use of a Federal ballot altogether. I believe, however, that the Congress should consider this matter with great care, and provide emergency leg- islation which will overcome the obstacles to soldier voting that may still exist in State laws as the elections draw near. Any such legislation by Congress should be temporary, since it should be possible to make all the necessary changes in State laws before the Congressional elections of 1954. Our experience during and after World War II conclusively demonstrates that unless early action is taken, hundreds of thousands of servicemen and women of voting age wiD be deprived of their constitutional right to vote this year. I am confident that all Mem- bers of Congress and all State officials will join me in the determination that those who are on the front line in the defense of our freedom shall have a chance to exercise one of the great rights associated with that freedom. Harry S. Truman note: The report of the Special Committee on Service Voting, American Political Science Associa- tion, is published in House Document 407 (82c! Cong., 2d sess.). See also Items 96, 124. 69 Address at the Jefferson-Jackson Day Dinner. March 29, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman of the Democratic Committee, distinguished guests and fellow Democrats: I am very happy to be here tonight. This makes seven Jefferson-Jackson din- ners that I have spoken to in the city of Washington. I hope to attend several more, in one capacity or another. They have all been wonderful dinners. One of the things I like about the dinners is the fact that they are political meetings. I like political meetings, and I like politics. Politics — good politics — is public service. There is no life or occupation in which a man can find a greater opportunity to serve his community or his country. I have been in politics more than 30 years, and I know that nothing else could have given me greater satisfaction. I have had a career from precinct to President, and I am a little bit proud of that career. I am sure all of you here tonight are very much interested in the presidential election this year. In view of that fact, I thought I would give you a little analysis of the political situation as I see it. The political situation in this country may look complicated, but you can find the key to it in a simple thing: The Republicans have been out of office for 20 long years — and they are desperate to get back in office so they can control the country again. For 20 years the Republicans have been wandering in a political desert — like camels looking for an oasis. They don't drink the same thing that camels do, though. And if they don't find it pretty soon, the Repub- lican Party may die out, altogether. And you know, I would just hate to see that happen. I would like to help keep the Republican Party alive, if that is at all pos- sible. So I am going to offer them a little 220 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 29 [69] advice about the error of their ways. There are some very good reasons why the Republicans have been out of office so long and haven't been able to get back in control. The first reason is that they were voted out in 1932 because they had brought the country to the brink of ruin. In the logo's the Republican administra- tions drew back in petrified isolation from our world responsibilities. They spent all their time trying to help the rich get richer, and paid no attention to the welfare of the workers and the farmers. All in all, they paved the way for the biggest economic smashup this country has ever seen. That is the reason the Republicans were thrown out of office in 1932 and one of the very good reasons why they have been kept out ever since. People don't want any more "Great Depressions." The second reason why the Republicans have been out of office for 20 years is that the Democratic Party has been giving the country good government. Instead of try- ing to build up the prosperity of the favored few, and letting some of it trickle down to the rest, we have been working to raise the incomes of the vast majority of the people. And we have been steadily expanding the base for prosperity and freedom in this coun- try. The people have kept right on reelect- ing Democrats because we have been serving them well and they know it. The third reason the Republicans have been kept out of power for 20 years is be- cause they have never been able to agree on a sensible program to put before the coun- try. They have been on almost every side of every question, but they have seldom or never been on the right side. In 1936 they said the New Deal was ter- rible and they were against it and all its works. And in the election that fall they just lost by a landslide. In 1940 they admitted there might be some good in some parts of the New Deal, but they said you needed a Republican to run it. And they were overwhelmingly beaten again. In 1944 the Republicans said the New Deal might have been good in its day, but it had gotten old and tired and it was no good any more. But the people didn't agree, and the Republicans were snowed under once more. Now in 1948 they said — well, as a matter of fact, by 1948 they were so sure of winning that they really didn't bother to take a posi- tion on anything. And they got just exactly what they deserved — they got another good licking. And by now the Republicans can't figure out what to do. Every day you hear a new Republican theory of how to win the elec- tion of 1952. One theory they have is that they ought to come right out and say they are against all advances the country has made since I932\ This is the kind of dinosaur school of Republican strategy. They want to go back to prehistoric times. Republicans of this school say: "Let's stop beating about the bush — and let's say what we really believe. Let's say we're against social security — and we're against the labor unions and good wages — and we're opposed to price supports for farmers — that we're against the Govern- ment doing anything for anybody except big business." Now, I have a lot of sympathy for these Republicans. They have been hushed up for a long time. They would certainly be happier if they could tell the truth for once and campaign for what they really believe. It would be good for their souls. But it wouldn't be good for their party, or for the country either. This dinosaur school of Republican strategy would only get the dinosaur vote — and there are not many of them left, except over at the Smithsonian. Next, there is the Republican theory that the Republicans can win if they oppose the foreign policy of the United States. They can't agree among themselves as to how 55-672—66 221 [6g] Mar. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents they want to oppose it, but most of them want to oppose it somehow. Some Republicans seem to think it would be popular to pull out of Korea, and to abandon Europe, and to let the United Nations go to smash. They reason this way: "The American people aren't very bright. Let's tell them they don't have to build up defenses, or serve in the Army, or strengthen our allies overseas. If they fall for that, then we Republicans will be in — and that's all that matters." The trouble with the Republican theory is that the American people are a lot smarter than the Republicans who thought it up. The American people have learned a lot from two world wars and from the last 7 years of working to keep the peace. They know that as long as communism is loose in the world we must have allies and we must resist aggression. The American peo- ple are living in the atomic age, and they know that the ideas of the stone age won't work any more — if they ever did work. And there is another group of Republicans who attack our foreign policy by advocating the "all-out" or "let's get it over with" theory. These are the Republicans who say they want to expand the fighting in Korea, and start dropping atomic bombs, and invite a new world war. They figure it's good politics to talk that way. They don't stop to count the cost. They think people don't understand that the hardest and bravest thing in the world is to work for peace — and not for war. But if war comes — and God forbid that it comes — if the showdown comes, these loud talkers would be the first people to run for the bomb shelters. And the voters know it. None of these Republican theories of how to win the election holds much promise of success this year. All they show is that the platform that the Republicans write in Chi- cago in July will have to be a fearful and wonderful thing to cover all these different theories. It will have to be a bigger tent than the Ringling Brothers circus — and it will have to cover just about as many freaks. It has even become fashionable for the Re- publican candidates to saw themselves in half and put part on each side of the fence. That would fit under the tent, too. The real Republican campaign is not going to be fought on the issues. The Re- publicans are going to wage a campaign of phony propaganda. They are going to try what we might call the "white is black" and the "black is white" strategy. The reason- ing behind it is this: The Republicans know that the Nation is strong and prosperous, that we are building up defenses against communism, that the Democratic adminis- tration has worked for the good of the people. The only chance for the Repub- licans, therefore, is to make the people think the facts aren't so. The job for the Repub- licans is to make people believe that white is black and black is white. This is a pretty difficult way to win an election. It wouldn't appeal to anybody but very desperate Republican politicians. But the Republicans have some reason for think- ing it might succeed. They will have the support of most of the press, and most of the radio commentators. And they may have the professional poll-takers with them again — as they were in 1948. The Repub- licans, as always, will have a lot of money. They have slick advertising experts. And they don't have too many scruples about how they use them. Remember that carpetbag- ger from Chicago who got convicted for the way he elected a Republican Senator in Maryland in 1950? They will try that all over the country. The Republicans are all set to try this "white is black" technique. And this is the way it will work. First of all, they will try to make people believe that everything the Government has done for the country is so- cialism. They will go to the people and say: "Did you see that social security check you received the other day — you thought that was good for you, didn't you? That's just too bad! That's nothing in the world but socialism. Did you see that new flood control dam the Government is building 222 Harry S. Truman, igp Mar. 29 [69] over there for the protection of your prop- erty? Sorry — that's awful socialism! That new hospital that they are building is social- ism. Price supports, more socialism for the farmers! Minimum wage laws? Socialism for labor! Socialism is bad for you, my friend. Everybody knows that. And here you are, with your new car, and your home, and better opportunities for the kids, and a television set — you are just surrounded by socialism!" Now the Republicans say, "That's a ter- rible thing, my friend, and the only way out of this sinkhole of socialism is to vote for the Republican ticket." And if you do that, you will probably have a garage and no car, a crystal radio set and no television — and probably not even a garage to live in, but a secondhand tent out on the lawn. I don't believe people are going to be fooled into that condition, be- cause they went through it once before. Now, do you think they can sell that bill of goods? This country today has more freedom for all its people than any country in the history of the world. And all the efforts of all the Republican politicians can't convince the people that this is socialism. The next part of this "white is black" campaign is to try to make people believe that the Democratic Party is in favor of communism. That is an even tougher job than selling the socialism nonsense, but the Republicans are desperate, so they are going to try it. Of course, we have spent billions of dol- lars to build up our defenses against com- munism; we have created an alliance of the free nations against communism; we are helping them to arm against communism; we have met and halted communism in Greece and Turkey, in Berlin and Austria, in Italy and Iran, and the most important of all, in Korea. We have fought communism abroad. We have fought communism at home. We have an FBI and a Central Intelligence Agency defending us against spies and saboteurs. The Federal loyalty program keeps Communists out of Govern- ment. That's the record, and how do the Re- publicans propose to get around it? Here's what they will try to do. They will go to the voters and say, "Did you know the Gov- ernment was full of Communists?" And the voters say, "No. What makes you say that?" And then the Republicans explain that somebody named Joe Doakes works for the Government, and he has a cousin who sells shoelaces, or a ribbon clerk in a de- partment store, and this cousin has a wife who wrote an article, before Joe married her, that was printed in a magazine that also printed an article in favor of Chinese Com- munists— and they will continue that ad lib. This may sound very silly, and it is. But some political fakers spend all their time trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes with this sort of nonsense. The real test of anti-communism is whether we are willing to devote our re- sources and our strength to stopping Com- munist aggression and saving free people from its horrible tyranny. This kind of anti-communism takes money and courage — and not just a lot of talk. The next time you hear some of this loud anti-Communist talk from our Republican friends, ask them how they voted — ask them how they voted on aid to Greece, ask them how they voted on the Marshall plan, ask them how they voted on the mutual security program. The chances are they voted to cut or cripple these all-important measures against com- munism. I say to you in all seriousness, beware of those who pretend to be so violently anti- Communist in this country, and at the same time vote to appease communism abroad. In my book, that is talking out of both sides of the mouth at once; and I don't think the American people are going to be taken in by it. The next part of the Republican "white is black" campaign is to try to fool the voters into thinking that the Democratic 223 [69] Mar. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents Party is dishonest — that the Government is full of grafters and thieves and all kinds of assorted crooks. To hear them talk you wouldn't think that there was an honest man in Washington. And that includes some of them, too, maybe. Now, I want to say something very im- portant to you about this issue of morality in government. I stand for honest government. I have worked for it. I have probably done more for it than any other President. I have done more than any other President to re- organize the Government on an efficient basis, and to extend the civil service merit system. I hate corruption not only because it is bad in itself, but also because it is the deadly enemy of all things the Democratic Party has been doing all these years. I hate cor- ruption everywhere, but I hate it most of all in a Democratic officeholder, because that is a betrayal of all that the Democratic Party stands for. Here is the reason. To me, morality in government means more than a mere ab- sence of wrongdoing. It means a govern- ment that is fair to all. I think it is just as immoral for the Congress to enact special tax favors into law as it is for a tax official to connive in a crooked tax return. It is just as immoral to use the lawmaking power of the Government to enrich the few at the expense of the many, as it is to steal money from the public treasury. That is stealing money from the public treasury. All of us know, of course, about the scan- dals and corruption of the Republican of- ficeholders in the 1920's. But to my mind the Veterans' Administration scandals, in those days, and the Teapot Dome steal, were no worse — no more immoral — than the tax laws of Andrew Mellon, or the attempt to sell Muscle Shoals to private owners. Leg- islation that favored the greed of monopoly and the trickery of Wall Street was a form of corruption that did the country four times as much harm as Teapot Dome ever did. Private selfish interests are always trying to corrupt the Government in this way. Powerful financial groups are always trying to get favors for themselves. Now, the Democratic administration has been fighting against these efforts to corrupt the powers of Government. We haven't always won, but we have never surrendered, and we never will. For all these years, we have been fighting to use our natural resources for the benefit of the public, to develop our forests and our public oil reserves and our water power for the benefit of all, to raise the incomes of all our citizens, to protect the farmer and the worker against the power of monopoly. And where have the Republicans been in this fight for morality in Government? Do they come out and vote with us to keep the special interests from robbing the public? Not at all. Most of them are on the other side. It's the same thing when you come to the question of the conduct of Government offi- cials. The Republicans make a great whoop and holler about the honesty of Federal em- ployees, but they are usually the first to show up in a Government office asking for special favors for private interests, and in raising cain if they don't get them. These Republican gentlemen can't have it both ways — they can't be for morality on Tuesday and Thursday, and then be for special privi- leges for their clients on Monday, Wednes- day, and Friday. The press recendy — for a wonder — has been giving some facts on this subject that have been very hard to get at. I'm disgusted with these efforts to dis- credit and blacken the character and reputa- tion of the whole Federal service. We have a higher percentage of Federal employees under civil service than ever before, and on the whole they are a finer, better type of men and women than we have ever had in the service before. It is just as much our duty to protect the innocent as it is to punish the guilty. If a man is accused, he ought to 224 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Mar. 29 [69] have his day in court, and I don't mean a kangaroo court, either. I hate injustice just as much as I hate corruption. Of course, we must always work to keep our Government clean. Our Democratic Senators and Congressmen have been work- ing and I have been working to clean up bad conditions where they exist, and to devise procedures and systems to prevent them in the future. And I would like to have help in this fight from everybody, Democrats and Republicans alike. I have just got one reorganization plan through the Congress, and I am going to send up some more plans to the Congress soon — to put more of our Federal officials under civil service and out of politics. I would like to see how many of the Republicans vote for them. I don't think the "black is white" cam- paign of the Republican Party is going to succeed. I think the voters are going to see through this holier-than-thou disguise that our Republican friends are putting on. All the tricks of Republican propaganda cannot make the people forget that the Democratic Party has been working for their welfare. We are working for the welfare of the farmer. We hold to the ideal that goes back to Jefferson, that a farmer should have the opportunity to own his farm, to share in the benefits of scientific progress, and to secure a fair income for his efforts. The Democratic Party is working for the success of our free enterprise system. We have worked to prevent monopoly, to give the small businessman a fair chance, and to develop our natural resources for all the peo- ple, and not just for the favored few. The Democratic Party is working for the welfare of labor. We have worked for good wages and hour legislation, for unemploy- ment compensation, and for fair labor rela- tions laws. The Democratic Party is dedicated to the ideal that every family is entitled to fair opportunities for decent living conditions, to a chance to educate their children, to have good medical services, and reasonable provi- sion for retirement. That is why we have worked for good social security laws, for better education and health services, for good housing, and for equal rights and opportu- nities for all our people, regardless of color, religion, or national origin. Above all, the Democratic Party is work- ing for peace on earth and goodwill among men. We believe that war is not inevitable, that peace can be won, that free men of all lands can find the way to live together in the world as good neighbors. That is why we have been willing to sacrifice to stop aggression, willing to send our money and our goods to help men in other countries stand up against tyranny, willing to fight in Korea to stop world war III before it be- gins. For if the bloody harvest of world war were to begin anew, most of us would never see a peaceful world again. This is the record of the Democratic Party. It is a proud record, and an honor- able record. It is a record of progress, of actions that are right because they are solidly founded on American ideals. Whoever the Democrats nominate for President this year, he will have this record to run upon. I shall not be a candidate for reelection. I have served my country long, and I think efficiently and honestly. I shall not accept a renomination. I do not feel that it is my duty to spend another 4 years in the White House. We must always remember the things the Democratic Party has done, and the high ideals that have made it great. We must be true to its principles and keep it foremost in service of the people. If we do that, we can be sure that there will be a Democratic President in the White House for the next 4 years. note: The President spoke at 10:30 p.m. at the National Guard Armory in Washington. His open- ing words referred to Wash. B. Williams who served 225 [69] Mar. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents as chairman of the dinner, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Frank E. McKinney, chair- man of the Democratic National Committee. Later he referred to the 1950 Maryland senatorial cam- paign in which Senator John Marshall Butler de- feated the incumbent Senator Millard E. Tydings. The address was carried on a nationwide radio and television broadcast. 70 Letter Accepting Resignation of Charles E. Wilson as Director of Defense Mobilization. March 30, 1952 My dear Charlie: I regret very much the circumstances which make you feel it is necessary to sub- mit your resignation as Director of Defense Mobilization. I consider that it was an act of sincere patriotism on your part to accept this position when I offered it to you in December, 1950. I have felt that you fully justified my confidence in you, and have carried out your duties with vigor, com- petence, and effectiveness. I believe the Nation owes you a deep debt of gratitude for your untiring and unselfish efforts to place the Nation's economic system in the necessary state of readiness to handle the defense emergency we are in, and to meet the larger emergency which would confront us if further Soviet aggression forced us into large-scale war. Under present circumstances, however, I feel I have no choice but to accept your resignation, effective March 31, 1952. Since you have discussed at length in your letter certain matters relating to the current wage negotiations in the steel industry, I feel that I should make certain comments on that situation, although I fear that no real gain for the public interest can come from airing such confidential matters at this time. As far as steel wages are concerned, our discussion last week end at Key West cov- ered among other things what you described to me as the very unstabilizing effects of the wage settlement recommended to the parties by the Wage Stabilization Board. Since that time, I have had a chance to go into the matter more thoroughly, and I find that the proposed changes in wages and working conditions are by no means unreasonable and do not, in fact, constitute any real breach in our wage stabilization policies. As far as steel prices are concerned, it is true that I agreed as to a "possible necessity" of allowing some price increase. However, I understood the necessity for doing this was to be thoroughly explored in your talks with the steel companies and otherwise, before a final decision was reached on this matter. The price control law requires that price ceilings be fair and equitable. I expect to see that that law, like every other one, is faithfully executed. If the eventual settle- ment of the wage negotiations is such that a price ceiling increase is required on grounds of fairness and equity or otherwise in the interest of the defense effort, it will be granted; otherwise, it will not. Such a jdetermination should obviously be made only after a thorough examination of the facts. For example, it seems to me to be quite material and important that the profits of the steel industry are continuing at extra- ordinarily high levels — that their profits amount to a good many times as much as any increased costs they would incur under the recommendations of the Wage Stabiliza- tion Board. I appreciate your attitude that both wage and price controls should be administered fairly and without regard to the special de- mands of pressure groups. I feel exactly the same way. I consider it my duty and my responsibility to see that the public in- 226 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Mar. 30 [71] terest in a strong defense economy is placed above any private interest. I believe this should be done on the basis of the facts as they actually exist. I expect to continue to do my best to see that this is accomplished. I shall be sorry not to have you at my side, but I wish you success and happiness in whatever future work you undertake. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Wilson served as Director o£ Defense Mobilization from December 21, 1950, through March 31, 1952. His letter o£ resignation, dated March 28, was released with the President's reply. 71 Remarks at a Reception by the Democratic National Committee. March 30, 1952 THANK YOU very, very much for this cordial reception. You have always given me a cordial reception. Even when the pollsters said I didn't have a friend in the United States, I still had the Democrats with me, and I hope they will always con- tinue to feel just that way. There is one thing I overlooked last night. I failed to say, after I had made the an- nouncement that I did not intend to run for reelection, that I will be just as enthusias- tically working for the Democratic ticket as if I were on it. You have a wonderful chairman, and I am just as sure as I stand here that the Democratic convention in July will nominate a winner. I will be in there, just the same as if I were the nominee — because I am that kind of Democrat. All the career that I have ever had — if I have had one — I owe to the Democratic Party, and I am not a fair day Democrat, I am a fair deal Democrat. And I like to see the people who get the rewards also take the punishment that goes with them. And that is what you have to do, if you are a good Democrat. Now the Democratic Party is, as I said last night, the salvation of the world and of this great country of ours. And we must not, under any circumstances, let down on that theory. I wish it were possible for me to person- ally shake hands with each one of you and give you a personal greeting and a thank- you for your having come here to make this the greatest and most successful Democratic dinner we have ever had in the history of the country. Now we want to have many more of this same sort, from one end of the country to the other. We want to elect a Democratic Congress. We want to elect a Democratic Senate, and we want to elect Democratic Governors. And I want every one of you to get in there and pitch and do it; and I shall be pounding you on the back from now until that first Tuesday in November to see that that is done. Again I want to thank you very much for this most cordial reception. I think I would have gotten a reception just the same if I hadn't made the announcement. I don't really believe you are cheering me because I am not going to run again. But I like it, and I am appreciative of the distances some of you have come for this purpose. I hope you will do it again and again and again. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 4:55 p.m. in the main ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. During his remarks he referred to Frank E. Mc- Kinney, chairman of the Democratic National Committee. For the President's address at the Jefferson- Jackson Day Dinner on March 29, see Item 69. 227 [72] Mar. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents 72 Statement by the President on the 10th Anniversary of the Institute of Inter- American Affairs. March 31, 1952 TODAY, March 31st, 1952, the Institute of Inter- American Affairs celebrates its 10th anniversary. Its 10 years of life have been 10 years of international cooperation in improving the living standards of the people of this hemisphere. The climate of peace and prosperity among the American Republics is a great source of comfort and pride to us all. A real share of the credit for this achievement is due to the Institute of Inter-American Affairs. The program of the Institute of Inter- American Affairs is one of the world's best examples of mutual effort by democratic nations to solve their most pressing economic and social problems. No other overseas Government program better fulfills the his- toric good-neighbor policy of the United States. The experience of the Institute shows us how technical assistance can be made available on a cooperative basis not only in the Western Hemisphere but also in other parts of the world under the point 4 concept. The Institute undertakes its constructive work only at the invitation and with the participation of the countries concerned. Two-way cooperation is the reason for the Institute's success. Through the Institute our country works with the other American Republics as self-respecting nations, on an independent but cooperative basis. Over the past decade the Institute's coop- erative programs have touched directly or indirectly the lives of millions of people in Latin America on the farms, in the small towns, and in the big cities. Malaria and other dread diseases are being conquered. The capital of a leading Latin American country for the first time now has a safe system of water supply and sewage. An- other nation is diversifying its basic agri- culture in the first major program to change an uneconomic one-crop pattern established centuries ago. In the Andes region, industrial safety ex- perts provided by the Institute are serving as advisers on safety methods in mining. In the vast Amazon River Valley, health centers established with the help of the Institute and staffed by doctors, nurses, and labora- tory technicians, are wiping out diseases and providing preventive medical services for jungle dwellers who never before had med- ical attention. These and other technical assistance proj- ects are a notable contribution to the unity of the hemisphere and to its common deter- mination to prove that the way of freedom is better than the way of communism. There is still a great deal to do. In one of the leading Latin American nations, for example, productivity is only one-eighth of what it is in the United States, life expect- ancy is only 40 years, compared to about 68 for the United States; and scarcely one out of three children in rural areas can go to school. The need for further work is evi- dent. The activities of the Institute must continue so that we can expand our efforts to fight hunger, poverty, disease, and il- literacy throughout the American Republics. 73 Remarks of Welcome to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands at the Washington National Airport. April 2, 1952 Your Majesty, and Your Royal Highness: It is a very great pleasure indeed for me, as the head of the Government of the United States, to welcome you to this country. I hope you will have a most pleasant visit, and that you will go away friendlier than when you came, if that is possible. I want to say to you that Mrs. Truman 228 Harry S. Truman, igp April 2 [74] and I are highly appreciative of the cordiality with which you treated our daughter when she was in your great country, and I hope that we, to some extent, will be able to return that hospitality. My daughter is out on a concert tour, be- cause as you know, her plans were changed and she has to appear when she agrees to. I am very sorry that she is not here, but I am not half so sorry as she is. I hope you will have a grand time while you are here. note: The President spoke at 4:05 p.m. Queen Juliana and her husband, Prince Bernhard, had arrived in Washington to begin an extended tour of the United States and Canada. The Queen re- sponded as follows : "Mr. President: "I thank you very much for your kind words, and your warm welcome. "We have been looking forward very much to our coming here. We are not strangers meeting here — we have been here a great deal during the war. "I want to bring you greetings from the people of the Netherlands to the American people, the main mission of our coming here. And furthermore, I just want to thank you for your very warm welcome. "I am sorry Margaret won't be here. We had such a nice visit with her, but she is not her own boss. "Thank you very much for your welcome." 74 Toasts of the President and Queen Juliana. April 2, 1952 WE ARE honored tonight by the visit of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, and His Royal Highness the Prince of the Netherlands. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the fact that we have with us what I like to refer to as the Fairy Queen. We had the Fairy Princess with us the time before, before she became the Queen of England. We appreciate the fact that our friendship with the Netherlands has been long and lasting. The largest bay on the North American Continent is named for a Dutchman, and his name was Hudson. One of the most beautiful rivers in the country — I say one of the most beautiful, not the most beautiful, necessarily — is named for this same Hendrik Hudson. The Dutch made a great contribution to the setdement of this great Nation of ours, and the Dutch also made a great contribu- tion after we became a great nation, because they were willing to invest their money in this country of ours — and did — for its development. They put on a point 4 program long before I was old enough to know what it meant. They built railroads, ranches, buildings — one of the greatest apartments in this area of Washington was built by Dutch capital. We are grateful for that. We want to show our gratefulness, and we have been trying to show that by the fact that we were — and are — willing to help free Europe recover and meet the world menace east of Poland. We have succeeded, to some extent in getting that done. We have stopped them at every perimeter in which they have made the attempt to make slaves out of their neighbors. We have a different situation here on this western continent. The United States is credited with being at this time one of the strongest nations in the history of the world. It has neighbors on the south. It has neigh- bors on the north. Those neighbors are not afraid of us. They don't think we are going to try to take them over, or make them colonies, or make them a part of our own territory. They are cooperative neighbors. We hope to see the whole world set up on that basis someday — and I think we will. And one of the great assets in our efforts to get that done is the great country that these lovely people represent. I am glad they are here. I hope they will 229 [74] April 2 Public Papers of the Presidents enjoy themselves. I hope they will take back a good opinion of this Nation of ours, and that when they go home they will feel more friendly to us than when they came — if that is possible. It is a very great pleasure to have you here, Your Majesty, and Your Royal Highness. I hope you will enjoy yourselves. You are very welcome. note: The President proposed the toast at 9:40 p.m. at a state dinner given in honor of Queen Juliana and her husband, Prince Bernhard, at the Carlton Hotel in Washington. The Queen responded as follows: "Mr. President: "I thank you very much for your very cordial and warmhearted words of welcome. "Some of the things you referred to, you spoke directly to my heart. I am going to speak about them tomorrow in Congress, but I want you to know how much response there is for what you say. "And then I want to say — well, we wanted to come and you wanted us to come. The wish was there on both sides. And you even wanted us to come to the White House in its new state. I can- not think of a greater kindness for our country; it is symbolic of the sign of friendship between the two nations. "One could write a most interesting story about that friendship, with possibly minor ups and downs. But it is always basically there, and that will remain so, I am absolutely sure. It can be of great service to the better understanding of each other, both in the Atlantic and in the world community. "I know, Mr. President, that you are a great friend of humanity. Your recent proposals to Con- gress to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and the problem of overpopulation in Europe are a new proof of it. "You head a great country of very human and kindhearted people, who have given us invaluable support during and after the war. They even liberated a part of our country. The graves of your soldiers there are shrines for us. Your Government and your people have put us on the arduous path to prosperity again. We are full of gratitude to the American people. And you are the representative of all this. "May I raise my glass in your honor, Mr. Presi- dent, and in Mrs. Truman's, our kind host and hostess in America, and to the everlasting friendship of our two countries." [At this point the toast was drun\. The "President then resumed speaking.] May I return that toast. To Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, and to His Royal Highness the Prince of the Nether- lands. 75 The President's News Conference of April 3, 1952 the president [reading], [1.] A current issue of a weekly news magazine contains an article which states that certain officials have voiced criticism regarding the ability of the United Nations truce team at Pan- munjon. I wish to make it perfecdy clear that the responsible officials of this Govern- ment, and myself in particular, have com- plete and unequivocal confidence in the integrity and competence of our negotiators. They are doing a splendid job. [2.] The Attorney General1 has re- signed. [Exclamations of surprise] And James P. McGranery, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, will take his place.2 Q. U.S. District Judge, Eastern District? the president. Yes. He is one of the judges for the eastern district. There are several. Q. James P.? the president. James P. McGranery. And the program will be carried on by the Attorney General from now on. Q. You are speaking of the corruption cleanup) THE PRESIDENT. Yes 1 J. Howard McGrath served as Attorney General from August 24, 1949, to April 7, 1952. 2 James P. McGranery was sworn in as Attorney General on May 27, 1952. 230 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 3 [75] Q. investigation? the president. the investigation cleanup. Q. Mr. President, would you continue to support the Chelf3 subcommittee investi- gating McGrath as a private citizen after he leaves office? the president. That is up to them — I don't run those congressional committees. They run themselves — much to my regret. Q. Mr. President, did Mr. McGrath fire Morris 4 with your knowledge and approval? the president. I saw it in the paper. Q. That's the first you saw Q. Will you repeat your answer? the president. I saw that in the paper. Q. I take it, Mr. President, that you didn't know about it before Mr. the president. It was under discus- sion, but I wasn't consulted when it was done. . Q. Mr. President, were you consulted be- fore it was done, sir? the president. They talked to me about it — I was talked to about it, but I made no suggestion or [3-] Q« One more thing, Mr. President, could you, or are you willing to clear up what went on at the airport yesterday? 5 the president. What? Q. What was the discussion that took place at the airport between you and the president. That is a private conversa- tion, and it will not be quoted by me. Q. Mr. President the president. Let the lady speak. Be polite just once. [Laughter] 3 Representative Frank L. Chelf of Kentucky, chairman of a special subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. 4 Newbold Morris, who had been serving as Special Assistant to the Attorney General to probe Federal corruption, was dismissed by Attorney General McGrath on April 3, 1952. 5 The reporter referred to a conversation which took place between the President and Attorney Gen- eral McGrath while they were waiting at the Wash- ington National Airport to welcome Queen Juliana of the Netherlands and her husband Prince Bernhard. [4.] Q. Mr. President, why was Mr. Morris fired? Do you think his dismissal was justified? the president. I can't answer the ques- tion. Q. Mr. President, did you ask the Attorney General to resign? the president. The Attorney General re- signed just now. Q. Mr. President, do you intend to rein- state Mr. Morris ? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion. I have got a new Attorney General. Q. Will you ask the new Attorney General, sir, to reinstate Mr. Morris? the president. The new Attorney General will have a free hand. Q. Mr. President, will you tell us why Mr. McGrath resigned? the president. Because he wanted to. The best reason I know. [Laughter] I think that's the best answer you can get. Q. Mr. President, do you have a letter from Mr. McGrath? If you do, could you tell us what is in it? the president. No. I can't — to either question. Q. May I ask another question? I won- der what is your opinion of the celebrated questionnaire6 of Mr. Morris? the president. I have never seen one, so I can't answer a question like that. Q. Mr. President, did the Attorney Gen- eral resign to you in person, or by telephone, or how? the president. By telephone. Q. Mr. President, would you clarify for me how you heard of Mr. Morris' being dis- charged? the president. Saw it in the paper. Q. The first you had heard? the president. Yes — on the ticker — that's where I saw it. Q. Mr. President, when will Mr. Mc- Granery — Judge McGranery take over? 6 Newbold Morris was reported to have given questionnaires on personal affairs to employees of the Justice Department as a part of his investigatory procedure. 231 [75] April 3 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. As quickly as possible. Q. Mr. President, had it been decided that Mr. McGrath would resign before he fired Mr. Morris? the president. I don't want to answer that question. Q. Were the two events connected ? the president. I don't want to answer that question. Q. Mr. President, did we understand you to say that the dismissal of Mr. Morris was under discussion, but that you weren't aware of the the president. The fact that it was going to take place right away. Q. Mr. President the president. What is it? Q. "As quickly as possible" — does that mean tonight or tomorrow, or the president. Well, I have got to send his name down to the Congress, and they will have to act on it. Q. Oh, I see. the president. I don't know how long that will take. Q. Just as soon as he can be approved? the president. As soon as he is confirmed. Q. Did you call up Mr. McGranery today? the president. I talked to him, yes. Q. That was what I was about to ask, when you first talked to Mr. McGranery? the president. About an hour and a half ago. I don't believe it was quite that long, was it, Joe? 7 Mr. Short: That's right, sir. Q. Mr. President, did Mr. McGrath give you any indication why he was resigning? the president. He resigned. [Laughter] Q. He resigned by telephone. Did you make the call, or did he, Mr. President? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion. Q. Mr. President, could I ask you whether you had any reason to be dissatis- fied with Mr. Morris' work? the president. I can't answer the ques- tion. 7 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. Q. Mr. President, did you talk to Mr. McGrath before or after you talked to Mr. McGranery ? the president. Before. Q. You talked to Mr. McGrath before. Thank you. Q. Mr. President, do I understand that the dismissal of Mr. Morris does stick? the president. That is a matter for the Attorney General to handle. The Attorney General appointed him and the Attorney General brought him down to Washington. It is up to the Attorney General to decide what to do with him. Edward T. Folliard (Washington Post): Mr. President, one more question THE PRESIDENT. All right. Q. this organization that Morris has set up down in the old Washington Post Building [Laughter'] Q. I knew he was going to plug that Q. I just wonder whether that would continue in existence? the president. That is up to the Attorney General. Q. Yes, sir. Thank you. the president. I am glad you gave a plug for the Washington Post. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, there is a technicality involved in the resignation of Mr. Morris. Mr. McGrath asked Mr. Morris to send his files back to the FBI. Now, do the files go back to the FBI, or do they remain with Mr. Morris? the president. They will remain in the charge of the Attorney General. They are his files no matter what happens. Q. Mr. President, I don't want to belabor this point, but could I ask you this question ? Was McGrath's resignation voluntary? the president. Yes. A resignation is al- ways voluntary. Q. Was the matter of Mr. McGrath's resignation discussed at your conference with him yesterday? the president. I don't want to discuss that. Q. Are you about to draft the usual letter ? 232 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 3 [75] the president. We'll see about that. Q. Mr. President, is it your intention to bring J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI directly into the investigation? the president. They have always been in it. Q. Mr. President, would you have any objection to the retention or the rehiring of Morris? the president. That is a matter for the Attorney General to setde, and that will be the new Attorney General. Q. Mr. President, has the prospective At- torney General indicated how he feels to- ward Mr. Morris? the president. I haven't discussed the matter with him. Q. Will the new Attorney General be down tomorrow, Mr. President? the president. I can't say. I don't think he will come down until he winds up his judicial affairs, and until he is confirmed by the Senate. Q. Mr. President, have you talked to Mr. Morris since he has been fired? the president. No. Q. Sir, did you tell the new Attorney General that one of his first tasks would be a decision with respect to Mr. Morris? the president. No. That is up to him. Q. Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald: Mr. President the president. You are kind of tangled up, aren't you, May? [Laughter] Now, come on and ask your question. Mrs. Craig: Well, sir, I am. the president. All right — I'm sorry. Mrs. Craig: Because we understood that Mr. Morris was your man to conduct it, and now he is fired. You don't tell us whether it is, in your opinion, a justifiable dismissal. It leaves Mr. Morris under a cloud. the president. Mr. Morris was brought down here by the Attorney General. He was hired by the Attorney General, and the Attorney General fired him. Now, that's all there is to it, May. Mrs. Craig: Then we were wrong the president. And I have got a new At- torney General. Mrs. Craig: in thinking he was your man? the president. He was not my man. Never was. Q. The Attorney General [5.] Q. Mr. President the president. Go ahead now. You want to talk Missouri politics? Q. Missouri politics. the president. That's all right. [Laugh- ter] I can talk "faster" about that. Q. We have information in St. Louis that General Vaughan 8 has telephoned Missouri Democratic leaders, asking them what they think about your running for the Senate. Did you know he was doing that? the president. General Vaughan didn't do that. Q. What did he do? the president. He didn't do anything. Q. Our information the president. He didn't do anything, Pete.9 Q. He didn't make calls from the White House to the Missouri Democrats? the president. No, some of them may have called him, but he never called any of them. Q. No the president. You are talking about the Post-Dispatch's attitude toward General Vaughan, and it isn't the right one. Q. No, that's not it. Our primary inter- est is whether you are going to run for the Senate from Missouri this year. the president. Well now, if it will help the situation, I am not. Q. You are not going to run for the Senate ? the president. / shall not be a candidate 8Maj. Gen. Harry H. Vaughan, Military Aide to the President. 9 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 233 [75] April 3 Public Papers of the Presidents for the United States Senate from Mis- souri. [Laughter'] That satisfies you, doesn't it? Q. It does. Q. Mr. President, how about the House of Representatives? [Laughter] the president. Same answer. [6.] Q. Mr. President, whom will you support for the Senate? the president. What? I will tell you that when it comes time for me to vote in the primary, I will tell you the person for whom I will vote. Q. Not until then, Mr. President? the president. Well, it will be time enough then. Q. Mr. Symington 10 told a number of us when he called on you, that he would not run unless he got the green light from you. the president. I gave no one a green light. Q. Now, could I ask one more question? the president. Yes, sir. [7.] Q. Do you intend to go back to Independence? the president. Certainly. That's my home. Q. Could you tell us what you hope to do in your leisure time? the president. I have got a lot of things I expect to do, and I think they will all be for the welfare of the country. I am going to try my best to continue to fight for peace in the world, and for the welfare of the people of the United States as a whole. Q. Will you do any lecturing or writing? the president. Well, I will cross that river when I get to it. I am not talented in that direction. [Laughter] You can never tell what a man can do. [8.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any 10 W. Stuart Symington, former Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and candi- date for the Democratic nomination for Senator from Missouri. comment on Senator Humphrey's bill for the disposition of ex-Presidents? [Laugh- ter] the president. How does he want to dis- pose of them? Does he want to put them in the river? I made a suggestion one time that it would be a grand thing if ex-Presidents and ex- Vice Presidents could have the freedom of the floor of the House and the Senate to talk, but not to vote. Is that the bill ? Q. That's right. the president. Well, I am in favor of it. [9.] Q. Mr. President, turning to an- other resignation, do you have a successor chosen for Mr. Charles E. Wilson? 1X the president. No, not at the present time. I will announce it when the time comes. [10.] Q. Can you tell us your plans in the steel situation? the president. No comment. [11.] Q. Mr. President, if we are off the Missouri politics for a minute the president. No. We are not, I hope. Q. I just wonder whether — do you favor Governor Stevenson 12 for the Democratic nomination ? the president. No comment. I said that this would be a free convention. And it will be. [12.] Q. Do you still intend to appoint an Ambassador to the Vatican, and if so, do you have any idea how soon ? the president. I am not ready to answer that question. Reporter. Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- eighth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, April 3, 1952. 11 Charles E. Wilson resigned as Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, effective March 31, 1952 (see Item 70). ^Governor Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. 234 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 3 [76] 76 Letter to Secretary Acheson on Requests for Information on the Administration of the Loyalty-Security Program. April 3, 1952 My dear Mr. Secretary: On March 28 you sought my guidance regarding the response which the Depart- ment of State should make to the requests of members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for detailed information on administration of the Department's loyalty- security program. I understand that many different questions have been raised by Sub- committee members, but that the informa- tion requested falls generally into four cate- gories as follows: 1. The complete files in specified loyalty- security cases, detailed information concern- ing the substance of investigative reports in certain additional cases, and the procedural steps and actions taken in the handling of various individual cases. 2. The names of all present and former State Department employees who have been investigated under the Federal Employees Loyalty Program or the Department's secu- rity program, together with the status or the disposition of their respective cases. 3. The names of all employees who re- signed or retired from the Department while under investigation or during processing of their loyalty-security cases. 4. The names of State Department officers who sat as members of the Loyalty Security Board on a particular case, and the way each officer voted. The information sought by the Appropria- tions Subcommittee cannot be considered solely from the standpoint of that Subcom- mittee or from the standpoint of the Depart- ment of State. If one Department is re- quired or permitted to supply information of the character requested, all other agencies of the Government would have to respond to similar demands from other sources. If all Executive agencies were to release in- formation of this nature, I am convinced that the over-all result would be to wreck the Federal Employees Loyalty Program. In the process, the reputations of hundreds of loyal Government employees would be pil- loried and the entire civil service would be severely demoralized. Accordingly, I must advise you not to furnish the information requested by the Subcommittee, for to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest. Much of the information wanted by the Subcommittee falls within the letter or the spirit of my memoranda of March 13 and August 5, 1948, in which I stated that the efficient and just administration of the Em- ployee Loyalty Program requires that re- ports, records, files and investigative data relative to the program be preserved in strict confidence. That is necessary in the interest of our national security, to preserve the con- fidential character and sources of informa- tion, to protect Government personnel against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations, and to insure the fair and just disposition of loyalty cases. The need for these directives is just as compelling today as it was in 1948. It would be a great mistake to release the names of State Department and other Fed- eral personnel who have been subjected to loyalty investigations, and to divulge the specific steps and actions taken in the proc- essing of individual loyalty-security cases. The FBI, which checks all Government em- ployees, institutes full field investigations upon the basis of derogatory allegations, whether or not true, and questionable affil- iations or associations, however innocent in fact they may prove to be. In the over- whelming majority of loyalty cases, thor- ough FBI investigation and careful loyalty board inquiry establishes the employee's loyalty. To divulge the names of these 235 [76] April 3 Public Papers of the Presidents loyal employees, and the specific steps taken in adjudicating their cases, would serve no useful purpose. In the hands of unscrupu- lous persons, however, this information could be distorted and used to subject the employees and their families to untold em- barrassment and distress. My apprehension in this regard is not based upon idle fancy, as you well know. Nor would the public interest be served by releasing the names of individuals deter- mined to be security risks. Persons dis- charged as security risks are in a distinctly different category from persons discharged on loyalty grounds. They usually are em- ployees who cannot be trusted with classified information because they have had question- able associates, talk too much, are careless, or may be unduly susceptible to outside influ- ences. In enacting Public Law 733, 81st Congress, providing for suspension of em- ployees in the interest of national security, the Congress clearly recognized that a se- curity risk may be a useful and suitable em- ployee in nonsensitive Government positions not involving access to classified information. Similarly, he may be an entirely loyal citi- zen who will render excellent service in pri- vate employment. The reputations of these persons should not be besmirched unneces- sarily by making their names public. Many Federal employees leave the service while under routine investigation or prior to the completion of their loyalty-security proc- essing. In the case of the State Department, I understand that such employees have left for a variety of reasons, such as military service, pregnancy, poor health, and the ac- ceptance of employment in private business. In many instances, Government employees leave the service without being aware of the fact they were under investigation. To pro- tect the innocent from groundless accusa- tions and unwarranted inferences, therefore, it is clear that these names should not be re- leased in response to blanket requests. All of the names, of course, are flagged for atten- tion in case the individuals should seek to reenter Government service. There is no objection to making available the names of all members of an agency loyalty board, but it is entirely improper to divulge how individual board members voted in particular cases or to divulge the members who sat on particular cases. If this type of information were divulged freely, the danger of intimidation would be great, and the objectivity, fairness and impartiality of board members would be seriously preju- diced. Hereafter, no information regarding in- dividual loyalty or security cases shall be pro- vided in response to inquiries from outside the Executive branch unless such inquiries are made in writing. Where proper in- quiries are made in writing, replies will be confined to two categories of information as follows: (1) If an employee has been sepa- rated on loyalty grounds, advice to that effect may be given in response to a specific request for information concerning the particular in- dividual; and (2) if an employee has been separated as a security risk, replies to requests for information about that individual may state only that he was separated for reasons relating to suitability for employment in the particular agency. No information shall be supplied as to any specific intermediate steps, proceedings, transcripts of hearings, or ac- tions taken in processing an individual under loyalty or security programs. No exceptions shall be made to the above stated policy unless the agency head deter- mines that it would be clearly in the public interest to make specified information avail- able, as in instances where the employee in- volved properly asks that such action be taken for his own protection. In all such cases, the requested information shall be re- leased only after obtaining the approval of my office. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Loyalty Review Board. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Dean Acheson, The Secretary of State, Washington, D.C.] 236 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 4 [77] note: For the President's directive on the need for maintaining the confidential status of employee loy- alty records, dated March 13, 1948, see 1948 volume, this series, Item 50. See also Item 60, this volume. J J Remarks at Ceremony Commemorating the Third Anniversary of the Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty. April 4, 1952 Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. Secretary of State, and distinguished guests: I am sure we all appreciate very highly the gracious remarks of Her Majesty, Queen Juliana. We are honored to have her and her husband with us on this historic occasion. When 12 nations of Europe and North America came together 3 years ago to sign the North Atlantic Treaty, one purpose was foremost in our minds. That purpose was to preserve peace for ourselves and our children. In the 3 years since April 4, 1949, the North Atlantic community has grown stead- ily in strength and in unity. Two more nations — Greece and Turkey — have joined the original 12. But our purpose is exactly the same as it was 3 years ago. The North Atlantic Treaty is an instru- ment of peace. All the lies and smears of hostile propaganda cannot conceal the fact that our nations have entered this treaty to preserve the peace. The people of our coun- tries don't want to fight another war; they want to prevent one. They have gone about it in the only way that can possibly work: that is, by banding together for mutual self-protection. In the past, many of the North Adantic Treaty countries at one time or another have tried to find peace through neutrality and isolation. It didn't work. And it never will work. The people of the North Atlantic com- munity know that if we are to preserve our independence, we must join our strength together. We have come a long way in these 3 years. We have created a common defense organi- zation, and have begun to develop sizeable defense forces, trained and equipped to spring into action against aggression. If we continue the hard, sustained effort we have begun, we can clearly foresee the time when our common military defenses will be strong enough to defend us against any attack. But we of the North Adantic community are doing far more than simply building military defenses. We are also working to- gether to build the solid social and economic foundations which are essential to our mili- tary defenses and to our entire future. It is not our aim to turn the North Atlantic community into a huge garrison, concerned only with defense. Such an objective would be foolish and self-defeating. Our actual aim is far different. Our aim is to remove the threat of war and thus set free the forces of human progress and advancement. We want to rid the world of poverty, to wipe out ill health and disease, to provide better educations for all our people, to build finer cities and towns and improve conditions on farms. We want to open the way to spiritual and religious growth, and the continued de- velopment of the arts and sciences. The North Atlantic Treaty has made a tremendous difference in the outlook of the people of our countries — especially in Eu- rope. Three years ago, many people were very discouraged — they thought the next war was bound to come soon, nothing could be done about it, and successful defense was hopeless. Today, there is a vast difference. Most people can now see that we are steadily in- creasing our chances of preventing another world war. And they can see that if we succeed, a great new future will open up for the human mind and spirit. There are enormous possibilities of apply- ing modern scientific advances to satisfy the 237 [77] April 4 Public Papers of the Presidents needs and desires of men. There are im- mense opportunities to improve our social institutions, to bring about better living con- ditions, to achieve the free society that men dream of. The basic principles of the treaty are the same principles that underlie the United Nations : on the one hand, to prevent war, on the other hand, to improve the conditions of life for men, women, and children every- where. That is why the North Atlantic Treaty means so much to free men — not only in our own countries, but in other lands. The struggle for peace is not an easy one, and it is not a struggle that can be won over- night. We shall have to continue to work for peace with all the determination and skill that we have. Every one of our countries has already accepted heavy burdens in this common struggle for peace, and there will be more burdens and sacrifices in the future. But we can attain our goal. We are dem- onstrating in the North Atlantic community every day that dangers and problems of the modern world can be successfully overcome by men of goodwill working together in mu- tual trust and confidence. And that is the way to peace with freedom and justice for all men everywhere. note: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. in Con- stitution Hall following brief remarks by Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. His opening words referred to the Queen, her husband Prince Bernhard, and Secretary of State Dean Acheson. The text of the treaty is printed in the U.S. Statutes at Large (63 Stat. 2241), and in the De- partment of State Bulletin (vol. 20, p. 339). For the President's address on the occasion of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, see the 1949 volume, this series, Item 68. 78 Remarks on Accepting a Carillon Presented to the People of the United States by the People of the Netherlands. April 4, 1952 Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, Mr. Secretary of the Interior, distinguished guests: It is a very great pleasure indeed, Your Majesty, to accept this symbolic bell for the carillon. I appreciate your thoughtfulness very much, and I have an idea that that bell will find its way into the hands of a young lady who is now out West. The carillon which Your Majesty has pre- sented on behalf of the people of the Nether- lands will be a wonderful gift. When it is completed, it will greatly enrich the life of this city, and it will bring pleasure to mil- lions of Americans when they come to visit this national capital. No gift could be a better symbol of the harmonious relations which have always existed, and which should always continue to exist, between the Nether- lands and the United States. On behalf of the people of the United States, I am happy to accept this gift from the people of the Netherlands. Our two countries have always been close together in spirit. There are many com- munities in this country, including our larg- est city, that owe their origin to the early Dutch settlers who came over here. Three of our Presidents — Martin Van Buren, Theo- dore Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt — traced their origins to the Netherlands. The people of the Netherlands are no strangers to us. They are welcome here whether they come as visitors or as settlers. Last September, Queen Juliana wrote a remarkable letter to me. In that letter she expressed her great concern over the plight of the refugees in Europe, and expressed the hope that something could be done to alleviate their distress and to give them new lives of usefulness and dignity. It was a letter full of compassion and human un- derstanding for the problems of these un- fortunate people. Since that time I have been working to find a way to help solve this problem. Our 238 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 4 [78] Government is supporting an international effort to provide opportunities for resettle- ment overseas not only for the unfortunate refugees of Europe, but also for those people who live in overcrowded areas and need a chance to migrate. I recently sent a message to the Congress, recommending that this country provide aid to those escaping from Communist tyranny, and at the same time accept additional im- migration into this country. One of the recommendations I made was that we should admit additional families from the Nether- lands. I hope the Congress will act favor- ably on this recommendation. If they do, we can add to the already warm ties which bind the United States and the Netherlands together. The people and the Government of the Netherlands are working closely with us in our struggle to bring about permanent peace in the world. They know how terrible war can be. They know it firsthand from the Nazi invasion. When the Netherlands was overrun, the spirit of the people, however, did not die. It found expression in the courageous resistance movement of the Dutch people. Queen Wilhelmina visited us in those sad and terrible years. She demonstrated for all of us the undying courage of the Dutch people and their faith in ultimate victory. In those days we worked together for victory — now we work together for peace. The American people are proud and happy to have been able to contribute to the revival of the Netherlands after the war. We have been impressed by the vigorous way in which the Dutch people have rebuilt their economy. We have great admiration for the plans now being carried forward in the Netherlands to reclaim additional land from the sea. Most of all, we have been impressed by the determination with which the people of the Netherlands have joined in the common de- fense of Europe. The Netherlands is an im- portant member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And now Dutch armed forces are preparing to enter into the European Defense Community. It is only through this kind of effort, it is only through unity with other nations, that any one of the free nations can make itself secure against the threat of war in the future. Through the United Nations, through the North At- lantic Treaty, the people of the Netherlands and the United States are working side by side for peace in the world. Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness, we are happy to have you with us. We are grateful for the magnificent gift which the people of Holland are making to us. I hope you will come again. The next time you come, I hope that you will be able to bring your four lovely daughters with you. I can understand how you would not want to take them out of school for such a long time. Perhaps the next time you visit you can come during school vacation. When you return to your country, I hope you will carry the thanks of the American people to the people of the Netherlands, and that you will express to them our good wishes and cordial and, I hope, eternal friendship. note: The President spoke at 3:45 p.m. in Meridian Hill Park in Washington. His opening words re- ferred to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands, her hus- band Prince Bernhard, and Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman. He also referred early in his remarks to his daughter Margaret who was on a concert tour in the western States. The presentation of the carillon was made by Queen Juliana on behalf of the people of her country. For the President's message to Congress requesting aid for refugees and displaced persons, see Item 65. 239 [79] April 7 Public Papers of the Presidents 79 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Urging Prompt Action on the Emergency Powers Continuation Act. April 7, 1952 required number of other countries have ratified the Treaty so that it is anticipated that it can be brought into effect as soon as the ratification by the United States is deposited. There are important reasons why the Japanese Peace Treaty must be put into force very promptly. Failure to do so will be a reflection on responsible government in the United States, which will be very damaging and impossible to explain to the rest of the world. However, in the absence of action by the Congress the coming into force of the Treaty would result in the termination of certain emergency powers which are now be- ing exercised and which are very important. I therefore urge the Congress to act imme- diately to provide at least a temporary ex- tension of the emergency powers in order to prevent a lapse when the Japanese Peace Treaty is put into effect. I would like to set forth some of the com- pelling reasons why bringing the Japanese Peace Treaty into force cannot be delayed. Advance planning has been going on many months for the necessary steps in- volved in turning authority back to the Japa- nese Government when the Treaty comes into force. This planning has been done not only by the Department of State, the Depart- ment of Defense, the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and the Government of Japan, but also on the part of other powers concerned. These plans have been made on the basis that the present Treaty will come into force by the first half of April. Any significant delay beyond that time would seriously interfere with Japan's orderly tran- sition from the status of an occupied country to that of a free and independent country. Furthermore, because of the complexity of the plans and the number of governments involved, the date finally established for bringing the Treaty into force must be an- Dear : I ask the Congress as a matter of the ut- most urgency to act, before it commences its Easter recess, to extend for a period of sixty days emergency powers which otherwise will terminate when the treaty of peace with Japan becomes effective. On February 19, acting on the recom- mendation of the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Chairman of the Na- tional Security Resources Board and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, I transmitted to the Congress a proposed Emergency Powers Continuation Act and recommended favorable action thereon. This measure would continue specific enumerated powers until six months after the termination of the national emergency proclaimed by the President on December 16, 1950, or until earlier dates fixed by con- current resolution of the Congress or by the President. There was a single, simple reason for this measure, namely, the impending termina- tion of the state of war with Japan through the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Japan. As I explained in my message, the still-existing state of war with Japan — which is the last existing state of war be- tween this country and others — provides the legal foundation for many important statu- tory powers which this Government is now exercising in carrying out the national de- fense program. I pointed out that unless the Congress acts to continue these powers they will end when the state of war with Japan ends (or, in some cases, within a fixed time thereafter), with very serious conse- quences for the national security. The Congress has been considering my request, but has not yet passed the required legislation. In the meantime, the Senate has given its advice and consent to the ratifica- tion of the Japanese Peace Treaty, and the 240 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 8 [80] nounced ten days in advance. This is why action by the Congress before Easter is imperative. The United States cannot be put in the po- sition of delaying the bringing into force of the Treaty. The Treaty was signed in the United States — at San Francisco — on Sep- tember 8, 1 95 1. Long before that the United States had urged that peace be re- established with Japan as promptly as pos- sible, and the United States took the lead in negotiating the Treaty. Because of the special position of the United States as the principal occupying power in Japan, the Treaty provides that, regardless of other rati- fications, it shall not come into force without the deposit of the ratification of the United States. This deposit has not been made. If now the United States were to delay the Treaty's coming into force, for avoidable reasons of a domestic nature, when other countries are ready to act, no credit would be brought either to this country or to our democratic processes. We would be widely misunderstood even among our friends, and we would open the way for hostile propa- ganda by those in Japan who would turn their backs on the democratic way of life. It is likewise of the utmost importance to the security of the country to continue in effect without any lapse the emergency powers dealt with in the proposed measure I have recommended. Among these are the authorizations under which the Govern- ment is now operating the railroads to in- sure the movement of troops and war ma- terials; is controlling the entry into and the departure from the United States of aliens and citizens whose movements would be dangerous to the national security; is con- tinuing the commissions of a large number of reserve officers on active duty in our armed forces the loss of whom would create a seri- ous problem; and is making full use of trained aviation officers who would be lost by the reinstatement of peacetime limita- tions. Furthermore, there are a number of provisions which furnish protection and benefits to civilians engaged in defense ac- tivities, to members of the armed forces, to veterans, and to the members of their families. As is apparent, these powers are such that even a brief lapse would have the most seri- ous consequences. Consequently, the problem which con- fronts us can be solved only by very prompt Congressional action; and I earnesdy ask that such action by taken. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. On April 14, 1952, the President approved a joint resolution, entitled "Emergency Powers Interim Con- tinuation Act" (66 Stat. 54), which continued the effectiveness of certain statutory provisions until June 1, 1952. Later resolutions extended the pro- visions to July 3, 1952, on which date the President approved a bill "to continue the effectiveness of cer- tain statutory provisions for the duration of the national emergency proclaimed December 16, 1950, and six months thereafter, but not beyond April 1, 1953" (66 Stat. 330). For the President's statement upon signing the Treaty of Peace with Japan, see Item 95. 80 Veto of Bill Relating to the Greenfields Division of the Sun River Irrigation Project, Montana. April 8, 1952 To the House of Representatives: I am returning, without my approval, H.R. 3144 "Relating to certain construc- tion cost adjustments in connection with the Greenfields Division of the Sun River irrigation project, Montana." This bill would empower and direct the Secretary of the Interior to make certain cost adjustments on the Greenfields Divi- sion of the Sun River irrigation project. 241 |8o] April 8 Public Papers of the Presidents Specifically, there would be deducted from the obligation of the Greenfields Irrigation District the amount of $297,752 representing certain construction costs on an abandoned section of the original irrigation canal. The facts in this case are as follows. Con- struction of the Greenfields Division of the Sun River irrigation project was undertaken in 1 9 13. Irrigation water was first made available in 1920. After some years of un- successful attempts to prevent seepage in one section of the canal, a new by-pass canal (the Spring Valley canal) was completed in 1930, and part of the old canal was abandoned. The Greenfields Irrigation District con- tracted to reimburse the United States for the cost of the irrigation works, including the cost of the Spring Valley canal. The amount of the repayment contract was set at not to exceed $9,500,000. Responsibility for operating and maintaining the irriga- tion facilities was transferred by the United States to the district on January 1, 1931. To date, about $740,000 has been returned on the repayment contract. The argument presented for now reducing the amount of the repayment contract has a surface plausibility. The argument is that the district should not have to pay for a section of the canal which was abandoned because of faulty engineering — a section, moreover, which some of the local people had predicted would fail when the original canal was being built. However, the fact is that the original engi- neering designs and construction plans were approved, after examination by a special board of consultants which took into account local objections, as in accord with the then accepted engineering standards for irrigation projects. If this bill were enacted into law, it would establish the principle that the Gov- ernment is obliged to give a complete guar- antee as to the engineering adequacy of all construction work on irrigation projects — and to include in the guarantee any advances in technology that may be later devised. I believe this would be an unsound principle. The Government's proper obligation is to make sure in any case that the design and construction work on any project is done well and competently, in accordance with the best engineering standards of the time. That obligation was fully met in this case. As a matter of fact, the building of the Spring Valley canal, in 1930, resulted in sub- stantially improving the irrigation facilities from the district's standpoint. Abandon- ment of the old section of the canal did not result in elimination of irrigation water de- livery to lands previously served. On the contrary, the new Spring Valley canal brought water to an additional 4,400 acres of land not previously served. The build- ing of the new canal, therefore, resulted in a betterment of the district's existing irriga- tion facilities. Under legislation enacted by the Eighty-first Congress, the cost of such re- habilitation and betterment work is added to the repayment obligation of the irrigation district involved, without any write-off of the costs of the original facilities. I see no reason for different treatment in the case of the Greenfields District. It is true that the Federal Government has a policy of writing off reimbursable construc- tion costs on irrigation projects where it is found that project acreage is not susceptible to irrigation, either because of soil conditions or because of a deficiency of water supply. Neither condition holds in this case. As pointed out above, the building of the new canal resulted in enlarging, not diminishing, the project acreage. In reaching the decision to veto this bill, I have considered the repayment problems that face the farmers in the district. The maximum amount of $9,500,000, to be re- paid without interest, will come from as- sessments made against all the irrigable lands in the district. The district's per acre construction cost obligation was not in- creased by reason of the partial abandonment of the Greenfields canal and by the cost of construction of the Spring Valley canal. 242 Harry S. Truman, J952 April 8 [81] The 4,400 acres of additional lands, which were brought into the district's service area by reason of the change in plan, enlarged the repayment base, and actually enhanced the district's ability to meet its annual obli- gations under its contract with the United States. The total repayment contract of the Greenfields District amounts to a construc- tion cost obligation of about $115 per acre, and this amount is repayable under the con- tract over a long period of years. I believe that these arrangements are fair and equi- table, and that they are consistent with the Federal policy of not placing undue financial burdens on the water users. For these reasons, I have concluded that the present repayment contract is not unfair, and that this bill would establish an un- fortunate precedent by reducing the repay- ment obligation of the Greenfields District on insufficient grounds. Accordingly, I am returning the bill without my approval. Harry S. Truman 81 Address Before the National Conference on International Economic and Social Development. April 8, 1952 [ Delivered by the Secretary of State ] Dr. Hannah, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I cannot tell you how much it means to me to come and meet with you tonight. You have come here from all parts of the country, and from all sorts of organiza- tions— church groups, business groups, labor unions, and farm organizations. You have come to discuss ways and means of going ahead with our plans for point 4. Point 4 takes its name from the last point of a fourfold program for peace in the world — the program I set forth in my inau- gural address, 3 years ago last January. We have been working on that program, and we have been making progress. We have done well on the first three points. First, we have supported the United Nations. Second, we have carried forward our plans for world economic recovery. Third, we have strengthened free nations against aggression. But these three points by themselves will not bring us the permanent peace we desire. The fourth point, helping the free peoples of the world to help themselves — to produce more, to raise their living standards, and to achieve decent, satisfying lives — this fourth point is in the long run the most important of all. Without it, we cannot reach the goal. Through the measures we have taken in the last several years — aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall plan, the North At- lantic Treaty, the Pacific treaties, the defense program, the resistance to aggression in Korea — through measures like these we are preventing conquest and world war. We have bought time — we have bought it at a great cost in lives and money. Now it is up to us to use that time intel- ligendy and courageously. We must use it to wipe out the root causes of war. We must use the time we are gaining by defense to campaign against hunger and disease and human misery. Mass suffering has been used by every dictatorship of our times as a stepping stone to power. It was used by the Japanese war lords. It was used by Hitler. Today it is the weapon of Soviet imperialism. Unless it is wiped out, it may be used in the future by some new dictatorship more terrible even than the Soviet. To have peace, we must strike at the con- ditions of misery that envelop half the people of the earth. That is the purpose and the meaning of point 4. 243 [81] April 8 Public Papers of the Presidents It will help us to understand point 4, if we step back and look at it in the light of history. In this century, scientific progress has brought us to the point where mankind, for the first time in human history, can wipe poverty and ignorance and human misery clean off the face of the earth. Yet this cannot be done unless scientific progress is linked with political freedom. That is the lesson of history. Without po- litical freedom, scientific progress can be- come a menace, rather than a boon to humanity. In the hands of totalitarians, scientific progress can be used to destroy civilization. But working together, scientific progress and political freedom can open such a fu- ture as mankind has never dreamed of. We have seen what this means in our own country. What we did here in the United States was to create the kind of political system in which men could breathe freely and work freely — the kind of government in which the energies of human beings could be released to make the most of the material resources around them. This is why our country has become the center of industry and science. This is why we have been called upon to lead the fight for freedom. We have given greater op- portunity to the individual than has ever been known before. We have given more material well-being to all our people than any earlier society was ever able to achieve. That is what scientific progress and po- litical freedom have done for us — and for many other countries founded in the tradi- tions of our Western civilization. Moreover the tremendous developments that have taken place in the Western World in modern times are having a profound ef- fect upon the ancient civilizations in Asia and Africa. The people of these areas have learned that they need not suffer hunger, disease, and poverty. They know that something can be done to put a stop to these things. They also have learned of the ideals of po- litical liberty and self-government. These peoples have watched us and learned from us. Now they are determined to share as equals in the benefits of modern progress. They are determined that their resources will no longer be developed in the interest of foreigners on the pattern of the old im- perialism. And they don't want them de- veloped for the benefit of Soviet imperialism either. They insist that these resources be developed for their own benefit. They are determined to establish their own free political and economic institu- tions— institutions which will make use of the best of our experience and will, at the same time, retain the best of their own cul- tures, and their own great traditions. This, I believe, is the mood and the temper that has come to Africa and Asia in my life- time. It is real. It is good. It holds tre- mendous promise. At the same time, it has great dangers. Such a movement can be easily misled. Communists or reactionaries can exploit the hopes and aspirations of these peoples for their own evil ends. Unscrupulous agi- tators can use these forces of change to bring about disorder and bloodshed. We must do all we can to keep this from happening. We want to help the people of these areas. We want them to learn the methods of our science and our industry and use these methods to develop their own resources. Above all, we want to help them find out and apply the secret of our own success, the secret of our American revolution — the se- cret that the vitality of our science, our indus- try, our culture is embedded in our political life — the secret that only free men, freely governed, can make the magic of science and technology work for the benefit of hu- man beings, not against them. Now, what does point 4 have to do with this? It has everything to do with it. It is the way we have chosen to give our help and share our experience. It is the right 244 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 8 [81] way — and the only way — this can be done. There is nothing of imperialism in our concept of point 4. We do not propose to dominate other people, or exploit them, or force them to change their ways of life. The two ideas that guide point 4 are first, cooperation, freely sought and freely given, and second, help to those who want to help themselves. Those are the only methods that can suc- ceed today. We must never forget them, or depart from them. In no other way can we work as friends and brothers with the awakening peoples in the underdeveloped regions of the world. This is what point 4 means in the per- spective of history. It is the way to prevent human progress from going off the rails, to prevent a smashup of civilization, and to help bring mankind to the threshold of a brighter, more wonderful future. This is not starry-eyed idealism. It is just plain, practical commonsense. If we fail to do this job, we will never have world peace. We cannot survive as an island of prosperity in a sea of human misery. But if we do the job, the world will be trans- formed. Just take one specific example. If we could help the people of the Orient get a well-balanced diet — three square meals a day — instead of the few mouthfuls of rice that most of them eat now, just that one change alone would have more impact on the world than all the armies and battles of history. It is not easy to do a job like this. To raise the level of diet means more than send- ing seeds and hoes abroad. It means that the people of these countries must develop farm credit institutions, and irrigation proj- ects, and roads and railroads, and new in- dustries and new employment for the mil- lions who live in cities. This will take technical assistance and capital development. It will take work by the United Nations and by the governments of other free na- tions. It will take work by many of our Government agencies. Point 4 is not just the concern of the State Department or the Mutual Security Agency, but of the Depart- ment of Agriculture, and the Public Health Service, and other agencies. But point 4 was never meant to be just a government program. It is a program of people, our people, helping other people throughout the world. Individually, and through our organiza- tions, there is much to do and no time to be lost. Many private organizations are carrying on point 4 programs overseas, and they need all the help and support they can get. We can send them tools and books and medical supplies. Our young people can train themselves as technical experts to go abroad. We can welcome students and visitors to our country; we can learn from them while they learn from us. In all we do, we must remember our great tradition. The American revolution has never stopped. In almost every generation we have overturned old ways of life, and de- veloped new ones — always moving toward more freedom, more opportunity and a bet- ter life for all our people. We have had setbacks on the way — but in the end we have always moved forward. Now, through point 4, we can help the people in the underdeveloped regions to move forward along the same path. We can help them to adapt the principles of freedom, which have inspired our develop- ment, to their own needs and circumstances. This is the way for us to live up to our ideals as a Nation, and fulfill our destiny as the greatest and most favored Republic God ever made. note: In the absence of the President who had a prior commitment, the address was delivered by Secretary of State Dean Acheson. The Secretary spoke at 9:45 p.m. at the Shoreham Hotel in Wash- ington. In his opening words he referred to Dr. John A. Hanna, president of Michigan State Col- lege, and chairman of the conference. 55-672^-^6- -19 245 [82] April 8 Public Papers of the Presidents 82 Radio and Television Address to the American People on the Need for Government Operation of the Steel Mills. April 8, 1952 [ Broadcast from the White House at 10:30 p.m. ] My fellow Americans: Tonight, our country faces a grave danger. We are faced by the possibility that at mid- night tonight the steel industry will be shut down. This must not happen. Steel is our key industry. It is vital to the defense effort. It is vital to peace. We do not have a stockpile of the kinds of steel we need for defense. Steel is flow- ing direcdy from the plants that make it into defense production. If steel production stops, we will have to stop making the shells and bombs that are going directly to our soldiers at the front in Korea. If steel production stops, we will have to cut down and delay the atomic energy program. If steel production stops, it won't be long before we have to stop making en- gines for the Air Force planes. These would be the immediate effects if the steel mills close down. A prolonged shutdown would bring defense production to a halt and throw our domestic economy into chaos. These are not normal times. These are times of crisis. We have been working and fighting to prevent the outbreak of world war. So far we have succeeded. The most important element in this successful struggle has been our defense program. If that is stopped, the situation can change overnight. All around the world, we face the threat of military action by the forces of aggres- sion. Our growing strength is holding these forces in check. If our strength fails, these forces may break out in renewed violence and bloodshed. Our national security and our chances for peace depend on our defense production. Our defense production depends on steel. As your President, I have to think about the effects that a steel shutdown here would have all over the world. 246 I have to think about our soldiers in Korea, facing the Chinese Communists, and about our soldiers and allies in Europe, con- fronted by the military power massed behind the Iron Curtain. I have to think of the danger to our security if we are forced, for lack of steel, to cut down on our atomic energy program. I have no doubt that if our defense pro- gram fails, the danger of war, the possi- bility of hostile attack, grows that much greater. I would not be faithful to my responsi- bilities as President if I did not use every effort to keep this from happening. With American troops facing the enemy on the field of batde, I would not be living up to my oath of office if I failed to do what- ever is required to provide them with the weapons and ammunitions they need for their survival. Therefore, I am taking two actions to- night. First, I am directing the Secretary of Com- merce to take possession of the steel mills, and to keep them operating. Second, I am directing the Acting Di- rector of Defense Mobilization to get the representatives of the steel companies and the steelworkers down here to Washington at the earliest possible date in a renewed effort to get them to settle their dispute. I am taking these measures because it is the only way to prevent a shutdown and to keep steel production rolling. It is also my hope that they will help bring about a quick settlement of the dispute. I want you to understand clearly why these measures are necessary, and how this situation in the steel industry came about. In normal times — if we were not in a national emergency — this dispute might not have arisen. In normal times, unions are Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 8 [82] entitled to whatever wages they can get by bargaining, and companies are entitled to whatever prices they can get in a competitive market. But today, this is different. There are limitations on what wages employees can get, and there are limitations on what prices employers can charge. We must have these limitations to pre- vent a wage-price spiral that would send prices through the roof, and wreck our econ- omy and our defense program. For more than a year we have prevented any such runaway inflation. We have done it by having rules that are fair to everyone — that require everyone to sacrifice some of his own interests to the national interest. These rules have been laid down under laws enacted by Congress, and they are applied by fair, impartial Government boards and agencies. These rules have been applied in this steel case. They have been applied to the union, and they have been applied to the companies. The union has accepted these rules. The companies have not accepted them. The companies insist that they must have price increases that are out of line with the stabili- zation rules. The companies have said that unless they can get those increases they will not settle with the union. The companies have said, in short, that unless they can have what they want, the steel industry will shut down. That is the plain, unvarnished fact of the matter. Let me tell you how this situation came about. The steel companies and the steelworkers union had a contract that ran until Decem- ber 31, 1951. On November 1, 1951, the union gave notice that in view of the higher cost of liv- ing, and the wage increases already received by workers in other industries, the steel- workers wanted higher wages and better working conditions in their new contract for 1952. The steel companies met with the union but the companies never really bargained. The companies all took the same position. They said there should be no changes in wages and working conditions — in spite of the fact that there had been substantial changes in many other industries, and in spite of the fact that the steel industry is making very high profits. No progress was made, and a strike was threatened last December 31. Before that happened, I sent the case to the Wage Stabilization Board. I asked them to investigate the facts and recommend a setdement that would be fair to both parties, and would also be in accordance with our rules for preventing inflation. Mean- while, I asked both sides to keep the steel industry operating, and they did. The Wage Board went into the facts very thoroughly. About 3 weeks ago, on March 20, the Wage Board recommended certain wage increases and certain changes in work- ing conditions. The Wage Board's recommendations were less than the union thought they ought to have. Nevertheless, the union accepted them as a basis for settlement. There has been a lot of propaganda to the effect that the recommendations of the Wage Board were too high, that they would touch off a new round of wage increases, and that a new wage-price spiral would set in. The facts are to the contrary. When you look into the matter, you find that the Wage Board's recommendations were fair and reasonable. They were entirely consistent with what has been allowed in other in- dustries over the past 18 months. They are in accord with sound stabilization policies. Under these recommendations, the steel- workers would simply be catching up with what workers in other major industries are already receiving. The steelworkers have had no adjustment in their wages since December 1, 1950. Since that time the cost of living has risen, and workers in such industries as automo- biles, rubber, electrical equipment, and 247 [82] April 8 Public Papers of the Presidents meatpacking have received increases rang- ing from 13 to 17 cents an hour. In the steel case the Wage Board recom- mended a general wage increase averaging 13% cents an hour in 1952. Obviously, this sets no new pattern and breaks no ceiling. It simply permits the steelworkers to catch up to what workers in other industries have already received. The Board also recommended a il/z cent wage increase to go into effect next Janu- ary, if the union would agree to an 18-month contract. In addition, the Board recom- mended certain other provisions concerning such matters as paid holidays and extra pay for Sunday work. The steel industry has been lagging behind other industries in these matters, and the improvements sug- gested by the Board are moderate. When you look at the facts, instead of the propaganda, it is perfectly plain that the Wage Board's recommendations in the steel case do provide a fair and reasonable basis for reaching a setdement on a new management-labor contract — a settlement that is consistent with our present stabiliza- tion program. Of course, neither party can ever get everything it thinks it deserves; and, certainly, the parties should bargain out the details. But in the present circum- stances, both the companies and the union owe it to the American people to use these recommendations as a basis for reaching a settlement. The fact of the matter is that the settle- ment proposed by the Board is fair to both parties and to the public interest. And what's more, I think the steel companies know it. They can read figures just as well as anybody else — just as well as I can or anybody in the business. I think they realize that the Board's recommendations on wages are reasonable, and they are rais- ing all this hullabaloo in an attempt to force the Government to give them a big boost in prices. Now, what about the price side? Is it true that the steel companies need a big in- crease in prices in order to be able to raise wages ? Here are the facts. Steel industry profits are now running at the rate of about $2% billion a year. The steel companies are now making a profit of about $19.50 on every ton of steel they pro- duce. On top of that, they can get a price increase of close to $3 a ton under the Cape- hart amendment to the price control law. They don't need this, but we are going to have to give it to them, because the Cape- hart amendment requires it. Now add this to the $19.50 a ton they are already making and you have profits of better than $22 a ton. Now, what would the Wage Board's rec- ommendations do to steel profits? To hear the steel companies talk, you would think the wage increase recommended by the Board would wipe out their profits alto- gether. Well, the fact of the matter is that if all the recommendations of the Wage Board were put into effect, they would cost the industry about $4 or $5 a ton. In other words, if the steel companies absorbed every penny of the wage increase, they would still be making profits of $17 or $18 a ton on every ton of steel they made. Now, a profit of$i7or$i8a ton for steel is extremely high. During 1947, 1948, and 1949, the 3 years before the Korean out- break, steel profits averaged a little better than $11 a ton. The companies could ab- sorb this wage increase entirely out of profits, and still be making higher profits than they made in the 3 prosperous years before Korea. The plain fact is, though most people don't realize it, the steel industry has never been so profitable as it is today — at least not since the "profiteering" days of World War I. And yet, in the face of these facts, the steel companies are now saying they ought to have a price increase of $12 a ton, giving them a profit of $26 or $27 a ton. That's about the most outrageous thing I ever heard of. They not only want to raise their prices to cover any wage increase; they want to 248 Harry S. Truman, 1952 AprilS [82] double their money on the deal. Suppose we were to yield to these de- mands. Suppose we broke our price con- trol rules, and gave the steel companies a big price increase. That would be a terrible blow to the stability of the economy of the United States of America. A big boost in steel prices would raise the prices of other things all up and down the line. Sooner or later, prices of all the products that use steel would go up — tanks and trucks and buildings, automobiles and vacuum cleaners and refrigerators, right on down to canned goods and egg beaters. But even worse than this, if we broke our price control rules for steel, I don't see how we could keep them for any other industry. There are plenty of other industries that would like to have big price increases. Our price control officials meet every day with industries that want to raise their prices. For months they have been turning down most of these requests, because most of the companies have had profits big enough to absorb cost increases and still leave a fair return. The paper industry has been turned down. So has the brass industry, the truck indus- try, the auto parts industry, and many others. All these industries have taken "no" for an answer, and they have gone home and kept right on producing. That's what any law abiding person does when he is told that what he'd like to do is against the rules. But not the steel companies — not the steel companies. The steel industry doesn't want to come down and make its case, and abide by the decision like everybody else. The steel industry wants something special, some- thing nobody else can get. If we gave in to the steel companies on this issue, you could say goodby to stabiliza- tion. If we knuckled under to the steel industry, the lid would be off. Prices would start jumping up all around us — not just prices of things using steel, but prices of many other things we buy, including milk and groceries and meat. You may think this steel dispute doesn't affect you. You may think it's just a mat- ter between the Government and a few greedy companies. But it is not. If we granted the outrageous prices the steel in- dustry wants, we would scutde our whole price control program. And that comes pretty close to home for everybody in the country. It is perfectly clear, from the facts I have cited, that the present danger to our stabili- zation program comes from the steel com- panies' insistence on a big jump in steel prices. The plain fact of the matter is that the steel companies are recklessly forcing a shut- down of the steel mills. They are trying to get special, preferred treatment, not avail- able to any other industry. And they are apparendy willing to stop steel production to get it. As President of the United States it is my plain duty to keep this from happening. And that is the reason for the measures I have taken tonight. At midnight the Government will take over the steel plants. Both management and labor will then be working for the Gov- ernment. And they will have a clear duty to heat up their furnaces again and go on making steel. When management and labor meet down here in Washington they will have a chance to go back to bargaining and settle their dispute. As soon as they do that, we can turn the steel plants back to their private owners with the assurance that production will continue. It is my earnest hope that the parties will settle without delay — tomorrow, if possible. I don't want to see the Government running the steel plants one minute longer than is absolutely necessary to prevent a shutdown. A lot of people have been saying I ought to rely on the procedures of the Taft-Hartley Act to deal with this emergency. This has not been done because the so- called emergency provisions of the Taft- 249 [82] April 8 Public Papers of the Presidents Hartley Act would be of no help in meeting the situation that confronts us tonight. That act provides that before anything else is done, the President must first set up a board of inquiry to find the facts on the dispute and report to him as to what they are. We would have to sit around a week or two for this board to report before we could take the next step. And meanwhile, the steel plants would be shut down. Now there is another problem with the Taft-Hartley procedure. The law says that once a board of inquiry has reported, the Government can go to the courts for an in- junction requiring the union to postpone a strike for 80 days. This is the only provi- sion in the law to help us stop a strike. But the fact is that in the present case, the steel- workers' union has already postponed its strike since last December 31 — 99 days. In other words, the union has already done more, voluntarily, than it could be required to do under the Taft-Hartley Act. We do not need further delay and a prolonging of the crisis. We need a settlement and we need it fast. Consequently, it is perfectly clear that the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act do not fit the needs of the present situa- tion. We have already had the benefit of an investigation by one board. We have already had more delay than the Taft-Hartley Act provides. But the overriding fact is that the Taft- Hartley procedure could not prevent a steel shutdown of at least a week or two. We must have steel. We have taken the measures that are required to keep the steel mills in operation. But these are tempo- rary measures and they ought to be ended as soon as possible. The way we want to get steel production — the only way to get it in the long run — is for management and labor to sit down and settle their dispute. Sooner or later that's what will have to be done. So it might just as well be done now as any time. There is no excuse for the present dead- lock in negotiations. Everyone concerned knows what ought to be done. A settle- ment should be reached between the steel companies and the union. And the com- panies should then apply to the Office of Price Stabilization for whatever price in- crease they are entided to under the law. That is what is called for in the national interest. On behalf of the whole country, I ask the steel companies and the steel workers' union to compose their differences in the American spirit of fair play and obedience to the law of the land. note: Earlier that day the President had signed Executive Order 10340 "Directing the Secretary of Commerce to Take Possession of and Operate the Plants and Facilities of Certain Steel Companies" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 861). This order was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court on June 2. See also Items 83, 103, no. 83 Special Message to the Congress Reporting on the Situation in the Steel Industry. April 9, 1952 To the Congress of the "United States: The Congress is undoubtedly aware of the recent events which have taken place in connection with the management-labor dis- pute in the steel industry. These events culminated in the action which was taken last night to provide for temporary opera- tion of the steel mills by the Government. I took this action with the utmost reluc- tance. The idea of Government operation of the steel mills is thoroughly distasteful to me and I want to see it ended as soon as possible. However, in the situation which confronted me yesterday, I felt that I could make no other choice. The other alterna- tives appeared to be even worse — so much 250 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 10 [84] worse that I could not accept them. One alternative would have been to per- mit a shutdown in the steel industry. The effects of such a shutdown would have been so immediate and damaging with respect to our efforts to support our armed forces and to protect our national security that it made this alternative unthinkable. The only way that I know of, other than Government operation, by which a steel shutdown could have been avoided was to grant the demands of the steel industry for a large price increase. I believed and the officials in charge of our stabilization agen- cies believed that this would have wrecked our stabilization program. I was unwilling to accept the incalculable damage which might be done to our country by following such a course. Accordingly, it was my judgment that Government operation of the steel mills for a temporary period was the least undesirable of the courses of action which lay open. In the circumstances, I believed it to be, and now believe it to be, my duty and within my powers as President to follow that course of action. It may be that the Congress will deem some other course to be wiser. It may be that the Congress will feel we should give in to the demands of the steel industry for an exorbitant price increase and take the consequences so far as resulting inflation is concerned. It may be that the Congress will feel the Government should try to force the steel workers to continue to work for the steel companies for another long period, without a contract, even though the steel workers have already voluntarily remained at work without a contract for 100 days in an effort to reach an orderly settlement of their dif- ferences with management. It may even be that the Congress will feel that we should permit a shutdown of the steel industry, although that would immedi- ately endanger the safety of our fighting forces abroad and weaken the whole struc- ture of our national security. I do not believe the Congress will favor any of these courses of action, but that is a matter for the Congress to determine. It may be, on the other hand, that the Congress will wish to pass legislation es- tablishing specific terms and conditions with reference to the operation of the steel mills by the Government. Sound legislation of this character might be very desirable. On the basis of the facts that are known to me at this time, I do not believe that im- mediate Congressional action is essential; but I would, of course, be glad to cooperate in developing any legislative proposals which the Congress may wish to consider. If the Congress does not deem it necessary to act at this time, I shall continue to do all that is within my power to keep the steel industry operating and at the same time make every effort to bring about a settle- ment of the dispute so the mills can be re- turned to their private owners as soon as possible. Harry S. Truman note: See also Items 82, 103, no. 84 Special Message to the Congress Summarizing the New Reorganization Plans. April 10, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am today transmitting to the Congress three plans providing for reorganizations in the Post Office Department, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. These plans have been prepared under the authority of the Reorganization Act of 1949. Each plan is accompanied by the message required by that act. The primary objective of these three re- organization plans is to make the executive branch of the Federal Government more 251 [84] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents efficient by permitting the Congress and the people to hold it more clearly accountable for the faithful execution of the laws. This objective is accomplished, in practical effect, by transferring from the President to the heads of the respective departments the function of appointment of numerous field officers who have heretofore been appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Reorganization Plan No. 2 vests in the Postmaster General the appointment of post- masters at first-, second-, and third-class post offices. Under Reorganization Plan No. 3, appointment of officials in the Bureau of Customs will be made by the Secretary of the Treasury. And under the terms of Re- organization Plan No. 4, the Attorney Gen- eral is authorized to appoint United States marshals. A prime prerequisite for an efficient ad- ministration of the laws is the establishment of clear lines of accountability from the top to the bottom of the executive branch. This is a fundamental recommendation of the Commission on Organization of the Execu- tive Branch of the Government. Since the report of that Commission, we have done much to establish the principle of accounta- bility throughout the executive branch. Re- organization Plans Nos. 3 of 1949 and 2 and 26 of 1950 vested in the Postmaster General, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of the Treasury, respectively, substantially all of the functions of their departments and granted them authority to delegate those functions to their subordinates. The three reorganization plans transmitted today are a continuation of our efforts to increase the accountability of these department heads by giving them this essential additional author- ity— the power to appoint the officers for whose performance they are responsible. This step, like Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 affecting the Bureau of Internal Revenue in the Department of the Treasury follows consistently and logically the steps already taken. Both the President's Committee on Ad- ministrative Management and the Commis- sion on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government have stressed the need of administrative reforms such as these which these plans will accomplish. In 1937, the President's Committee on Administrative Management said, "the con- tinued appointment by the President of field officials, such as postmasters, United States marshals, collectors of internal revenue and collectors of customs is not only antiquated, but prejudicial to good administration." More recently, the Commission on Orga- nization of the Executive Branch of the Government has said, "the primary respon- sibility for personnel selection and manage- ment (in the Post Office Department) other than the Postmaster General and the Direc- tor of Posts should rest in the service," and "all officials of the Department (of the Treasury) below the rank of assistant sec- retary should preferably be appointed from the career service without Senate confirma- tion." Although the Commission did not study the organization of the Department of Justice, these considerations apply with equal force to the office of United States marshal. Through the years, the following reasons for these proposals, given in the report of the President's Committee on Administra- tive Management, have become more com- pelling: "The multiplicity of Presidential appoint- ments defeats the power of the Chief Execu- tive to control his establishment. Instead of increasing his control over personnel, it operates to weaken and dissipate his au- thority. It places him in a position of direct responsibility for many appointments which he has little time to consider and robs him of time urgently needed for attention to important executive duties. It interferes with the authority that should be vested in the heads of the several departments for the proper discharge of their responsibilities. It is difficult for them to maintain appro- priate relationships, discipline, and morale 252 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 10 [84] when their subordinates feel that they have direct and immediate responsibility to the President who appointed them. Conflicts of interest and jurisdiction within depart- ments frequently result." In addition to the primary objective of making the executive branch more efficient by providing greater accountability in these executive departments, these reorganization plans will gain for us the benefits which will come from filling these offices stricdy on the basis of merit under the classified civil service. In the earliest days of the Republic when these offices were first created, there was no organized merit system in the Federal Gov- ernment. The First Congress in 1789 de- termined the method, unchanged to this day, for appointing collectors of customs and United States marshals. The civil service alternative was not available in 1836 when Presidential appointment and Senate con- firmation were first prescribed for top post- master appointments. Today, in contrast, we have developed a civil service system which has proved eminently satisfactory for examining Gov- ernment employees and which now embraces 93% of all Federal positions in the United States. The magnitude and complexity of governmental operations requires many skills — skills which must be found and fos- tered through a professional career service, in which employees are unencumbered by allegiances or obligations outside the Gov- ernment which distract them from their offi- cial duties. We have proved beyond all doubt, since the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, that the best government is obtained when tasks of a nonpolicy-forming nature are placed in the hands of civil servants who get and hold their jobs solely on merit. This principle, applied gradually over the years to a widening group of employees, now needs to be extended. As I have stated on numerous occasions, the present method of appointing postmas- ters has been a matter of special concern to me. Under Presidential orders beginning in 19 1 7, and now under a statute enacted in 1938, postmasters in the first-, second-, and third-class post offices are examined by the Civil Service Commission but are re- quired to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. This procedure injects a hybrid mixture of political and merit considerations into ap- pointments to offices which should be in the career service. It discourages many able persons from applying for these posts be- cause they believe political preferment is the determining factor in appointment. Another and vitally important advantage will be gained from these three reorganiza- tion plans. The development of national policy is a complex and crushing task. The problems which we must jointly solve de- serve our very best efforts. Relations be- tween the President and the Congress ought not to be complicated by the need for coming to agreement on the selection of a host of field officials in posts where policy is not made. I know, from personal experience in both the Congress and the Presidency, how much time and effort is lost and how we have been distracted from the consideration of issues of paramount national importance by the present method of appointing the officials covered by these reorganization plans. We must relieve ourselves of this burden of minor personnel actions in order to devote our efforts to the greater issues confronting our Government today. We are indeed fortunate that the framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, pro- vided in Article II, section 2, alternative methods for appointing inferior officers of the executive branch. What I am proposing today is that we cast off the new outmoded method of appointing these more than 20,000 subordinate officials and vest their appoint- ment in the heads of departments. It should be emphasized that these plans are not the result of hasty action nor do they provide for an immediate separation from Government service of the thousands 55^-672— 6 253 [84] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents of incumbents now on the job. The pro- posed reforms are not aimed at them as individuals or as groups; rather they are aimed at modernizing a system which is no longer useful. Each reorganization plan contains specific provision for the gradual application of the changes. As a general rule, these changes in appointing officials will occur at such times as the present offices become vacant. The United States marshals and the officers affected in the Bureau of Customs, with certain exceptions, now serve for a stated number of years, while present postmaster appointments are for an indefinite tenure. The complete changeover to the new method of appointment, therefore, will require several years. I want it clearly un- derstood that this gradual application of the full merit system to these offices as they become vacant grants no partisan advantage or disadvantage to any political party. These plans cannot, therefore, rightfully be opposed on the ground that they help or harm any political group. We must at all times endeavor to take every step to assure the people that their Government is effectively organized and managed. We must increase efficiency; we must adopt every true economy; we must eliminate overlappings and duplications; we must improve accountability; we must pro- mote the better execution of the laws. It is indeed significant that the Reorganization Act of 1949 specifically sets forth these broad objectives for Government reorganization. In proposing reorganization plans under that Act, I seek to accommodate all these coordinate purposes. The reorganization plans which I am transmitting today aim primarily at making the executive branch more efficient by increasing the accounta- bility of three department heads. They will fully extend the merit system to cover more than 20,000 nonpolicy-making officers of the Government. They will relieve the Presidency and the Congress of the unnec- essary burden of appointing and confirming a host of subordinate officers. I highly commend these reorganization plans to the Congress. Harry S. Truman note: See also Items 85-87. 85 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 2 of 1952. April 10, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and provid- ing for reorganizations in the Post Office Department. My reasons for transmitting this plan are stated in another message trans- mitted to the Congress today. This reorganization plan provides for the gradual elimination of Presidential appoint- ment and Senate confirmation of postmas- ters at post offices of the first-, second-, and third-class and the institution of appointment by the Postmaster General under the classi- fied civil service. This is accomplished by abolishing each present office of postmaster at post offices of the first-, second-, and third- class at such time as it next becomes vacant, except that each such office vacant on the date determined under the provisions of section 6(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949 is abolished on that date, and by es- tablishing a new office entitled "Postmaster" to be filled by the Postmaster General. The complete transition to the new method of appointment is expected to require a period of several years. At the end of the last fiscal year there were 2,732 post offices of the first class, 5,905 of the second class, and 12,801 of the third class — a total of 21,438 such post offices. Many persons and groups have on several occasions in the past advocated the reforms contained in Reorganization Plan No. 2 254 Harry S. Truman, igp April 10 [86] of 1952. In 1937 the President's Committee on Administrative Management proposed the transfer to the Postmaster General of the function of appointing all postmasters. In 1949 the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government specifically recommended this reform. In a message to the Congress on June 24, 1949, I proposed legislation to accomplish this purpose, and in this year's Budget Message I renewed this recommendation. The abolition of offices by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952 will not abolish any rights, privileges, powers, duties, immuni- ties, liabilities, obligations, or other attributes of those offices except as they relate to mat- ters of appointment and tenure inconsistent with that reorganization plan. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949, all of these at- tributes of office will attach to the new offices of Postmaster, either automatically or upon the occurrence of an appropriate delegation of functions to such new offices by the Post- master General. After investigation, I have found and hereby declare that each reorganization in- cluded in Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1952 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949. I have found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 2, by reason of re- organizations made thereby, provisions for the appointment and compensation of of- ficers specified therein. The rates of com- pensation for these officers are not in excess of those which I have found to prevail in respect to comparable officers in the execu- tive branch. The taking effect of the reorganizations included in this plan may not in itself result in substantial immediate savings. However, many benefits in improved operations will be made possible by the plan and should result in a reduction of expenditures as com- pared with those that would be otherwise necessary. An itemization of these reduc- tions in advance of actual experience under this plan is not practicable. I urge the Congress to permit Reorganiza- tion Plan No. 2 of 1952 to become effective. Harry S. Truman note: Reorganization Plan 2 of 1952 is printed in House Document 425 (820! Cong., 2d sess.). It did not become effective. 86 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 3 of 1952. April 10, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and provid- ing for reorganizations in the Bureau of Customs of the Department of the Treasury. My reasons for transmitting this plan are stated in another message transmitted to the Congress today. This reorganization plan provides for the abolition of all offices of collector of customs, comptroller of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise, to which ap- pointments are now required to be made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the authority of section 6 of the Reorganization Act of 1949, I have provided that incumbents in these offices may serve out their present terms of office. The abolition of offices, therefore, will occur gradually. As the existing offices are abolished, the Secretary of the Treasury will provide for the continuation of the functions now delegated to them. The Secretary will dele- gate the functions to officials of the Treasury Department appointed by him under the classified civil service, including certain new offices, for which more adequate compensa- tion is authorized, established in the Bureau 255 [86] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents of Customs by this reorganization plan. These officials will be selected wholly on the basis of merit. The most qualified persons will be sought, from both within and with- out the service. When this reorganization is completed, all officials and employees of the Bureau of Customs will be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury under the civil service laws. This reorganization plan also provides for the abolition of certain functions relat- ing to customs administration now vested in the Secretary of the Treasury. These functions are obsolete and unnecessary. They impose unduly restrictive fiscal pro- cedures upon the Bureau of Customs. Their abolition will promote a more ef- ficient performance of customs functions and a better service to the public. Many of these abolished functions have been handed down since 1789 when the Customs Service was established by the First Congress. Some of them are regulations carried over from pre-revolutionary days when the British Crown provided an inde- pendent check on colonial customs revenues through its naval officers. These proce- dures have been reviewed by the Bureau of the Budget, the General Accounting Office, and the Treasury Department under the Government's Joint Accounting Program. The abolitions contained in this reorganiza- tion plan are based, in part, on that study. They will permit the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize fully in the Bureau of Customs the authority given to him by the Congress in the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950. This reorganization plan will ultimately produce economies. There will be some savings in salaries resulting from the aboli- tion of offices. There will also be savings resulting primarily from modernized fiscal controls. These latter savings will be real- ized only after the accounting reforms have become fully effective. It is expected that within a few years the annual savings, based upon present enforcement levels, business volume, and salary scales will aggregate at least $300,000. After investigation I have found and hereby declare that each reorganization in- cluded in Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949. It should be emphasized that abolition by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 of the offices of collector of customs, comptrol- ler of customs, surveyor of customs, and appraiser of merchandise will in no way prejudice any right or potential right of any person paying duties or imposts. The aboli- tion of offices by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 will not abolish any rights, privileges, powers, duties, immunities, liabilities, obli- gations, or other attributes of those offices except as they relate to matters of appoint- ment, tenure, and compensation inconsistent with that reorganization plan. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949 all of these at- tributes of office will attach, as may be ap- propriate, to personnel of the Department of the Treasury to whom the Secretary of the Treasury delegates the functions for- merly vested in the abolished offices. I have found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying Reorganization Plan No. 3, by reason of reorganizations made thereby, provision for the appointment and compensation of of- ficers specified therein. The rates of com- pensation for these officers are not in excess of those which I have found to prevail in respect to comparable officers in the execu- tive branch. For the purpose of the requirements of the last sentence of section 3 of the Reorga- nization Act of 1949, with respect to specify- ing in the transmittal message of the Presi- dent the statutory authority for the exercise of functions abolished by a reorganization plan, the statutory citations set forth in sec- tion 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1952 are hereby incorporated in this message by reference and shall be deemed to be a part 256 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 10 [87] hereof as fully as if set forth at length in this message. This reorganization plan will permit a needed modernization of the organization and procedure of the Bureau of Customs. It will permit a more effective administra- tion of the custom laws. I urge the Congress to permit Reorganiza- tion Plan No. 3 of 1952 to become effective* Harry S. Truman note: Reorganization Plan 3 of 1952 is printed in House Document 426 (82c! Cong., 2d sess.). It did not become effective. 87 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 4 of 1952. April 10, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the Reorganization Act of 1949 and pro- viding for reorganizations in the Depart- ment of Justice. My reasons for transmit- ting this plan are stated in another message transmitted to the Congress today. This reorganization plan vests authority in the Attorney General to appoint United States marshals under the classified civil service. This is accomplished by abolish- ing 94 existing offices of marshal, and by creating 94 successor offices of United States Marshal to which the Attorney General will make appointments under the classified civil service. I have made provision to authorize in- cumbent marshals to serve out their present terms of office. Under the authority of sec- tion 6 of the Reorganization Act of 1949 this reorganization plan will become effec- tive gradually. The abolition of offices by Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1952 will not abolish any rights, privileges, powers, duties, immuni- ties, liabilities, obligations, or other attributes of those offices except as they relate to mat- ters of appointment, tenure, and compensa- tion inconsistent with that reorganization plan. Under the Reorganization Act of 1949 all of these attributes of office will attach to the new offices of United States Marshal, either automatically or upon the occurrence of an appropriate delegation of functions to such new offices by the Attorney General. For example, the statutory pro- visions requiring the marshals to be bonded (Title 28 United States Code, section 544) will attach to the successor offices of United States Marshal created by Reorganization Plan 4 of 1952. After investigation I have found and hereby declare that each reorganization in- cluded in Reorganization Plan 4 of 1952 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the Reorganization Act of 1949. I have found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying reorganization plan, by reason of reorga- nizations made thereby, provisions for the appointment and compensation of offices specified therein. The rates of compensa- tion fixed for these officers are not in excess of those which I have found to prevail in respect of comparable officers in the execu- tive branch. Immediate and substantial economies are not expected from this reorganization plan since it is designed primarily to serve other purposes of the Reorganization Act of 1949. Therefore, no itemization of the probable reduction of expenditures to be achieved by this plan is included in this message of transmittal. Reorganization Plan No. 4 provides for increased administrative accountability in an important department of the executive branch by giving the Attorney General needed authority to appoint under the merit system a group of subordinates for whose performance he is already held responsible. It carries forward an objective partially real- 257 [87] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents ized in 1 94 1 when the deputy marshals were brought into the classified civil service under the terms of the Ramspeck Act of 1940. It places the determination of the qualifications and the selection of a group of non-policy making field officers of the Department of Justice on a systematic, merit basis. I urge the Congress to permit Reorganiza- tion Plan No. 4 of 1952 to become effective. Harry S. Truman note: Reorganization Plan 4 of 1952 is printed in House Document 427 (82c! Cong., 2d sess.). It did not become effective. 88 The President's News Conference of April 10, 1952 the president. Good morning. Please be seated. [1.] I want to make an announcement about next week's press conference. It will be held down here in the Natural History Building at 10th and Constitution Avenue. It will be a joint press conference for you and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, which is why we are moving to a larger hall. That is also the storage place for dinosaurs. [Laughter] The hour is 4:30, instead of 4. Give you a little more time to get there. [2.] Q. Mr. President, last week we were a little preoccupied by some other mat- ters, and we wanted to explore, if you are willing, the background and reasons for your decision not to run again. the president. Well, there is only one reason: because I didn't want to. That's the best reason I know. I made up my mind a long time ago on it. I think a year or two ago you asked me if I had made up my mind, and I told you I had. But I had to wait until the right time to announce it. Q. Mr. President, could you elaborate a little on why the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner x was the right time? the president. The biggest audience I will ever have in my life. [Laughter] I wanted it put out so it could not possibly be distorted, so I put it out myself with everybody listening. And I made it as plain as English can be written, so far as I know. Q. Mr. President, are there any conditions under which you would accept a draft at the convention? the president. No. I will not accept a draft. [3.] Q. Mr. President, how soon do you expect a solution by collective bargaining in the steel dispute? 2 the president. I can't — have no way of knowing. I hope it will be soon. [4.] Q. Mr. President, have you received any notice of General Eisenhower — of his intentions to resign or, in fact, his actual resignation? 3 the president. I have not — no — nothing to say on the subject now. Q. Mr. President, you said you would not? the president. Nothing to say. Q. Mr. President, I asked you a question at Key West, and your answer was some- what confusing — to me at least — about the procedure that would be followed. You appointed General Eisenhower, and I won- der if it is true that his relief from his posi- 1 Item 69. 2 See Items 82, 83, 103, no. 3 On April n the White House released the text of the exchange of letters between Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett, in which General Eisenhower requested re- lease from his assignment as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers Europe, and the Secretary promised to take action to obtain it. General Eisenhower's letter of resignation to Lt. Gen. Paul Ely, Chairman, The Standing Group, North Atlantic Treaty Organi- zation, was also included in the release. The text of the correspondence is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 26, p. 614). 258 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 10 [88] tion as Supreme Commander of NATO would come directly to you? the president. Well, that appointment was made with the approval and advice of the associated countries. I think General Eisenhower's right to quit, or do as he pleases, rests entirely with him. And the appointment of his successor will follow the same procedure — if, as, and when he does quit. But the appointment to follow, we will have the agreement of the associated nations [inaudible] Q. Mr. President, in that procedure, did the associated nations ask you to appoint an American THE PRESIDENT. YeS. Q. or did they ask you to appoint Eisenhower? the president. They asked me to appoint an American commander for the allied troops, just as I was asked to appoint the allied commander in Asia. Q. But not by name? the president. Not by name, no. Came up for me to make the appointment, and they were all very happy at the appointment I made. And so was I. Q. Mr. President, I remember in relation to the supreme commander you said that was a continuing authorization. You would then appoint the president. Well, it is a continuing authorization, but it is courtesy to have it continued at each time. Q. Yes. the president. The procedure will be followed to keep friendly with the allies. Q. Mr. President, I am still confused about procedures. You said that the general would present his resignation perhaps in person to Lovett. Would it be to Secretary Lovett, or to the Standing Group, or to you? the president. It will be to me through the Secretary of Defense. Come through channels. Q. First, Mr. Lovett, then you? the president. Then come to me. Q. You will present it to the Standing Group ? the president. I will just annouce it. Q. You will announce it. [5.] Q. Mr. President, in the steel dis- pute, do you have any plans for putting the Wage Board recommendations into effect? the president. The parties to that dispute are negotiating for a setdement, and I want that negotiation carried through as a collec- tive bargaining aflair. I will not interfere with it. Q. That goes for the president. That's final. That's final. Q. Mr. President, there is some comment that you had not mentioned the open shop provision in the Wage Stabilization Board recommendations ? the president. I am not the negotiator for these things. That is a matter for the collective bargaining. I did not enter into it. I don't expect to. Q. Was there any significance the president. None whatever. None whatever. Q. Mr. President, I must have misunder- stood you the president. It is kind of hard to make yourself perfectly plain, but this is a collec- tive bargaining matter, and I want these parties to reach an agreement by collective bargaining. What's the matter, Smitty? 4 Q. I didn't understand your answer. Do I understand correctly that you will not order the Wage Stabilization Board recom- mendations put into effect while this col- lective bargaining is going on? the president. I will cross that bridge when I get to it. But I want this negotia- tion to be successful, and I think it can be. [6.] Q. Mr. President, two questions, if you please. First, in the steel profit figure per tonnage you used on the air, was that figure before or after taxes? the president. That figure stands just as it was in the speech, and I am not going into details about it at all. [7.] Q. The second question, sir, do you * Merriman Smith of the United Press Associations. 259 [88] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents consider the recommendations pro or con on a union shop within the purview of the Wage Stabilization Board? the president. The Wage Stabilization Board did not stop — step out of its preroga- tives when it made the recommendation. [8.] Q. Sir, do you yet have a successor to Mr. Wilson— Charles E.? 5 the president. No. No, I haven't. I will announce it as soon as I have one. Q. Mr. President, speaking of appoint- ments, are you planning to appoint Ray- mond McKeough, former Congressman,6 to a vacancy on the Federal Trade Commis- sion ? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Mr. President, speaking of appoint- ments and nominations, what about the two Illinois judges? 7 the president. Still under consideration. [Laughter} They will probably remain there for a long time. Q. Mr. President, what about a successor to John Russell Young? 8 the president. When I find him I will announce it to you and you will have it in plenty of time. Q. Does Mr. Donohue have any chance of being appointed Assistant Attorney Gen- eral ? the president. I haven't heard anything about it. I haven't heard anything about it. [9.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to make any comment on Mr. Randall's 9 speech last night, charging you entered into a corrupt political deal with the CIO? 5 See Item 70. 6 Raymond S. McKeough, former Representative from Illinois. 7 See Item 35 [7]. 8 On April 9 the White House released the text of Mr. Young's letter of resignation as a member of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Colum- bia and the President's letter of acceptance. Mr. Young's resignation became effective May 31, 1952. 9 On April 9, Clarence B. Randall, president of Inland Steel Company, spoke on a nationwide radio and television broadcast, regarding the seizure of the steel mills by President Truman. The text of Mr. Randall's remarks is published in the Congres- sional Record (vol. 98, p. A2331). the president. No comment. [10.] Q. Have you anything to say about the cuts that the House made in the Defense appropriation bill? the president. When the appropriation bill comes to me — it's in the course of action now — then I will comment on it. [11.] Q. Mr. President, another appoint- ment. Are you going to appoint W. W. Herron to the 6th Circuit Court o£ Appeals? the president. Not that I know of. Q. W. W. who? the president. Judge Herron, down in Tennessee — a very fine gentleman, and a friend of mine. He is under consideration, but I have come to no conclusion about the appointment. Q. He is the chancellor at Trenton. the president. He's all right — a fine man. [12.] Q. Mr. President, if I may go way back to the Eisenhower matter again, you said that the appointment of a successor, if and when, would follow the same procedure as before. That would be, of course, if they asked for the appointment of an American again — I mean, is that implied? the president. I think they asked me to appoint a supreme commander. Q. Yes, sir. the president. I did not put any quali- fication on it at all. Q. No, sir — oh, I see. The fact that you were asked to appoint a supreme commander wouldn't necessarily mean — we're just going into problematics there — that if you saw fit to go outside of the American Army, you would also be privileged to do that? the president. I would do my best, if they still want me to continue to have that power — I would do my best to find the best man available for the purpose. Q. I just wanted to get that cleared up. the president. That's fine. [13.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask you a question on the Executive order. As I read it, Mr. Sawyer 10 would have authority 10 Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer. See Item 82. 260 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 10 [88] to negotiate wages and conditions, or terms and conditions of employment, while the mills are under his operation, is that the president. The order speaks for itself, and I can't elaborate on it. Q. I was just wondering whether the plan was to have salaries remain, and wages re- main, where they are until the negotiations are worked out? the president. I don't expect to comment on anything in connection with this, as long as these negotiations are going on. I would like to make that final. [14.] Q. Mr. President, I am a litde bit confused about this Eisenhower thing now, for sure. [Laughter'] the president. Well, I wish you wouldn't be. Q. Why would they ask you to make the appointment if it were other than an Ameri- can general, sir? the president. The principal reason why they would ask me to make the appointment is because we are the keystone of the defense of the free world. Q. And it would be possible, then, because of your position as President of the United States, in the Council of the North Adantic Treaty, that you would name other than an American? the president. I could. I didn't say I would. Q. No. I understand that. the president. What is it, Bob? n Q. Mr. President, there is one other thing on the Eisenhower matter. If and when the General does request to be permitted to come home — be relieved of his command — would you make that announcement within a short time after receipt, or is there any reason that you might find necessary to hold it up ? the president. Whenever General Eisen- hower is ready to have the announcement made, I will make it. It is stricdy up to him. [15.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report that you have suggested to some of the Democratic Party officials that Senator Humphrey 12 would be a suitable choice for keynoter at the Democratic convention. the president. That is a matter that is in the hands of the national chairman. [16.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that the government of the world will bring about world peace before 1953? the president. I am not a good prophet. I hope it will. [17.] Q. Mr. President, have you de- cided who will succeed General Eisen- hower? the president. The matter has not been considered. [18.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to attend the Democratic National Conven- tion in July? the president. Well, I don't think so. I expect to campaign for the nominee after the convention. Q. Do you? That raises an obvious ques- tion which has not, to my knowledge, been clearly answered, as to whether you will indicate a preference among the candidates before the convention opens ? the president. I hope it won't be neces- sary for me to do that. But the President has a right to a preference, the same as any other citizen. Q. Mr. President, on this matter of the keynoter, do you think there will be some embarrassment in having a candidate as the keynoter? the president. No, I don't think so. It has been done before. Q. Mr. President, if Mr. Kefauver13 should be the nominee, would you cam- paign for him? the president. I will support the Demo- cratic ticket no matter who is nominated. Q. Mr. President, is that preference going to be for Governor Stevenson 14 the president. I have no preference to express right now. 11 Robert G. Nixon of International News Service. 12 Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota. 13 Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee. 14 Governor Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. 26l [88] April 10 Public Papers of the Presidents [19.] Q. Another question, Mr. Presi- dent. The Senate Judiciary Committee is making noises like they are never going to get around to the new Attorney General's confirmation.15 Any comment to make on that? the president. None whatever. You had better talk to the Chairman of the Commit- tee,16 and find out for sure. [20.] Q. Mr. President, I just want to be clear — you said you did not plan to go to the Democratic convention? the president. I don't think so. There is no reason why I should go to the con- vention. I am sure I won't be a delegate from Missouri. [Laughter] Q. I just wanted to be sure. Q. Mr. President, one of your constituents or one of your Congressmen down there said you had been invited to attend the conven- tion at Jefferson City, May 26th, and he seemed to have high hopes that you would go? the president. I would like to go. I don't know whether I can or not, but I would like 15 On May 20 the Senate confirmed the appoint- ment of James P. McGranery as Attorney General. 16 Senator Pat McCarran of Nevada, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. very much to go to that convention. I have been to nearly every Missouri State conven- tion since I can remember. [21.] Q. Is it definite now that you are not going to that dinner in New York next week for Harriman ? 1T the president. I don't see how I can get there. I would like very much to go, but I just don't see how I can get there. Just too much to do around here. My day has got longer than it was before — if that is possible. [22.] Q. One other question, sir. You said you would campaign for the Demo- cratic nominee. Do you plan an active stumping tour, such as you had in 1948? the president. Well, that is a matter that is up to the national committee. I will ren- der them all the assistance they think I should, and I will do my best, because I want a Democrat in the White House next time. Merriman Smith: Thank you, Mr. Presi- dent. the president. That's all right. note: President Truman's two hundred and ninety- ninth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 1952. 17 W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. 89 Statement by the President on the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of Leonardo da Vinci. April 11, 1952 ON April 15, 1952, associations in many countries dedicated to art, science, and scholarship will celebrate the 500th anniver- sary of the birth of Leonardo da Vinci, the illustrious Italian painter, sculptor, inven- tor, scientist, and humanist. His achieve- ments have become the common heritage of all men and have left an indelible record in the history of Western civilization. He has impressed his influence on the culture of our own and many other nations. By virtue of his wisdom, his creative energy, his zeal for the truth, and his devo- tion to the ideal of human dignity he helped provide new foundations for subsequent 262 progress in the sciences and arts, in the mastery of the resources of nature, and in the acceptance of modern concepts of free- dom and justice. Italy and France, the nations with which da Vinci was most closely associated during his long life, are celebrating his anniversary on April 15. Since the American people have a common interest in the heritage of Western civilization which owes so much to da Vinci, it is fitting that we also take note of the anniversary with appropriate observ- ances in our museums and other institutions of art, science, and learning. Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 14 [92] 90 Remarks at the Presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor to 1st Lt. Lloyd Burke, USA, Cpl. Rodolfo Hernandez, USA, and T. Sgt. Harold E. Wilson, USMC. April 11, 1952 IT HAS been my pleasure this morning to present Medals of Honor to 1st Lt. Lloyd Burke, United States Army, Cpl. Rodolfo Hernandez, United States Army, and T. Sgt. Harold E. Wilson of the United States Marine Corps. These are wonderful citations. They show just exactly what the fiber of the American people is made of. They show exactly how the young men feel toward their Government. They show the sacrifices that they are willing to make to support and keep that Government a free one from now on. They set an example which all of you ought to be proud to listen to, and I con- gratulate every single one of them. And I congratulate the corps to which they belong. Thank you. note: The President spoke at 12:35 P-m- in tne R°se Garden at the White House. The text of the cita- tions was not made public. 91 Memorandum Requesting Agency Heads To Cooperate in an Inquiry by a Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary. April 12, 1952 THE House Judiciary Committee by resolu- tion adopted January 29, 1952, established a special subcommittee to conduct an inquiry of specific allegations and complaints, based upon credible evidence determined by the subcommittee, with reference to the admin- istration of the Department of Justice and the Office of the Attorney General of the United States. It is my desire that the Executive branch of the Government co- operate with the committee to the end that a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation may be made. Accordingly, I have today issued an Ex- ecutive Order empowering the committee to inspect tax returns under appropriate limitations, and I now request that all de- partments and agencies, to the fullest extent consistent with the proper performance of their work and duties, cooperate with Chair- man Frank L. Chelf and his subcommittee for the purpose of such an investigation. Harry S. Truman note: The President referred to Executive Order 10343 "Inspection of Tax Returns by Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 865). 92 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on Highway Safety. April 14, 1952 [ Released April 14, 1952. Dated April 11, 1952 ] My dear Mr. Secretary: The mounting toll of traffic accidents on our highways is one of the more serious problems confronting our Nation today. While the continuing efforts made by indi- viduals, organizations, Federal, State and 263 [92] April 14 Public Papers of the Presidents local agencies to promote highway safety have resulted in a reduction in the rate of accidents, the great increase in traffic has caused an increase in the total number of accidents and fatalities and the downward trend has been reversed. In 1950 traffic fatalities reached 35,000. In 195 1 this total increased to 37,500 and the National Safety Council estimates that a further increase to the alarming total of 40,000 will result from highway accidents during 1952. Coupled with the bodily in- jury to more than 1,000,000 persons and monetary losses approaching $3,000,000,000, these staggering totals indicate the need for renewed and increased efforts. In May 1946, at my invitation, representa- tives of the States, counties and municipali- ties with legal responsibilities in matters of highway traffic, together with representatives of numerous national and civic organiza- tions having a primary interest in traffic safety, assembled in Washington as the President's Highway Safety Conference for the purpose of devising ways and means of reducing this annual drain upon our na- tional resources. This Conference adopted an Action Program designed to inaugurate a definite and continuing movement for the purpose of promoting a greater degree of safety for traffic upon our highways. This Action Program has produced gratifying results wherever it has been applied fully. Results have been in proportion to the vigor with which the program has been advanced. We cannot be satisfied with the present accomplishments but must intensify our ef- forts in an endeavor to awaken greater pub- lic interest in reducing traffic casualties. We should enlist the active support of busi- ness and other civic groups as well as public officials. With this thought in mind and since the Bureau of Public Roads, which is the Federal agency concerned chiefly with highway matters, is under your jurisdiction, I should like to have you spearhead a re- newed highway safety program and serve as General Chairman of the President's Highway Safety Conference. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Charles Sawyer, The Secretary of Com- merce, Washington, D.C.] note: The President's Highway Safety Conference was held in Chicago, 111., on October 17 and 18. 93 Remarks to a Group of Displaced Persons. April 14, 1952 IT GIVES ME much pleasure indeed to welcome you to this country of ours, and I hope you will get as much pleasure out of your citizenship in this country as I have had in helping you to get here. This country of ours is a magnificently great country, and it was made up in the beginning of people who were displaced in their own countries. There isn't a colony in the country that was not made up of people who were fleeing from persecution and hunting a better life. We have come to the point now, though, where some of the descendants of those early immigrants have come to the conclu- sion that they shouldn't help other people who are now in the same condition that they were at that time. I am not one of them, although my roots go back as far as any of the people who claim ancestry in this country. I am not an ancestor hunter, I am a man who believes in doing things today that will make the world a better place to live in. We took much time, and great effort, in bringing the displaced persons to this coun- try, and it gives me much pleasure to wel- come the last one on the list. 264 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 15 [95] I hope it will not be the last one on the list, for I want to increase it to a much larger number. Congratulations. note: The President spoke at 3:40 p..m. in the Rose Garden at the White House to the last group of refugees to be admitted into this country under the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 1009). 94 Remarks on Receiving Members of the Council of the Organization of American States. April 14, 1952 Members of the Council: It is a pleasure for me to meet with you and to extend to each one of you a personal greeting on this Pan American Day. Today we are celebrating the founding of the Or- ganization of American States, which was established 62 years ago. This organization symbolizes the good neighborly relations and the peaceful cooperation that we have developed in our inter-American system. Last year, on December 13, the new char- ter of the Organization came into effect. This was a forward step in the long history of this Organization. From now on, by virtue of its new charter, the Organization will have an even better opportunity to con- tinue its important work of furthering the cooperation of our respective countries. That cooperation was highlighted about a year ago, when this Government had the honor to act as host to the fourth meeting of foreign ministers. At that time the foreign ministers gave careful consideration to the common problems facing our hemisphere by reason of the aggressive policy of interna- tional communism. Acting in accordance with the finest inter-American traditions, they worked out a common set of policies regarding our regional action in regard to that danger. Our governments emphasized at that time our determination to uphold our common objective of achieving a peaceful and co- operative world order. We expressed our firm resolve to strengthen our defenses only in order that our countries might continue to live in peace and devote themselves to promoting the cultural and economic wel- fare of their peoples. Our policy continues to be guided by that purpose today. The Organization of American States is tangible evidence of our belief that coopera- tive effort among nations is essential to pre- vent aggression, to eliminate want, and to increase human liberty and happiness. In the achievement of these aims, the principles of mutual respect, of solidarity, and of be- lief in the dignity of man, upon which our inter- American system rests, are of profound importance. They express the essence of our common faith and form the basis of our common purpose. This anniversary should be a day of re- dedication to the great spiritual values of our common heritage. In that spirit I extend my best wishes to each of you and through you to the Organi- zation of American States and to the peoples which it serves. Note: The President spoke at 5 p.m. in the Blue Room in the White House. 95 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Treaty of Peace With Japan and Related Security Pacts. April 15, 1952 AS PRESIDENT of the United States, it gives me great satisfaction to sign, and thus ratify today the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the Security Treaty with Australia and New Zealand, the Security Treaty with Japan, and the Mutual Defense Treaty with the 265 [95] April 15 Public Papers of the Presidents Republic of the Philippines. The signing of these documents completes another in the series of steps being taken by free nations to bring peace and security to the Pacific. When the United States and at least two more of the countries mentioned in Article 23 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan and the United States have deposited their ratifi- cations, the historic ceremonies of restoring Japan to a position of independence, honor, and equality in the world community which began at San Francisco last September will have been brought to a conclusion. The related security and mutual defense treaties will become effective when their ratifications are either deposited or exchanged in ac- cordance with their respective terms. In signing these documents, I know that I express the essential unity and will of the American people for the earliest possible achievement of lasting peace and freedom with security. The Treaty of Peace with Japan and the related security and mutual defense treaties, when they go into effect, will bring that goal nearer to realization. note: The Treaty of Peace with Japan and the re- lated security pacts were favorably considered by the Senate on March 20, 1952. The text of the treaties is printed in United States Treaties and Other Inter- national Agreements. The Multilateral Treaty of Peace with Japan (3 UST 3169) and the Security Treaty between the United States and Japan (3 UST 3329) entered into force on April 28, 1952, and were proclaimed by the President on the same day. The Multilateral Security Treaty between Australia, New Zealand, and the United States (3 UST 3420) entered into force on April 29, 1952, and was proclaimed by the President on May 9, 1952. The Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of the Philippines (3 UST 3947) entered into force on August 27, 1952, and was proclaimed by the President on September 15, 1952. See also Item 1 1 1 . 96 Letter to the Secretary of Defense on Voting by Servicemen. April 16, 1952 Dear Mr. Lovett: Attached is a copy of my Message to Con- gress, March 28, 1952, on the subject of vot- ing by servicemen, along with the report of the Special Committee on Service Voting of the American Political Science Associa- tion. As you will see, the report makes a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the activities pertaining to soldier voting now being performed by the Depart- ment of Defense. The Department of Defense is already working with State governments, and dis- tributing to servicemen information on vot- ing rights and procedures. The informa- tion and education program of the Defense Department has undertaken to provide serv- icemen with information about candidates and issues, and the necessity for voting. These activities of the Department are im- portant, and as the report recommends, this program should be strengthened. In carrying out its activities with relation to soldier voting, the Department of De- fense is at present in touch with State of- ficials concerning State legislation on serv- icemen's voting. It is important that officials in the States understand that action must be taken promptly to remedy defects in their State laws and procedures if servicemen from those States are to vote this year. I hope that you will continue to keep in touch with the States and the extent of progress which they make in improving soldier vot- ing procedures. The extent of State action will determine whether or not it is necessary for Congress to enact Federal legislation in time to give the maximum number of serv- icemen the right to vote this year. The report of the Committee includes recommendations which are aimed at estab- lishing a permanent system for the improve- ment of soldier voting machinery, both in the Federal Government and in the States. 266 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 16 [97] For this purpose, the report recommends that the Secretary of Defense report to Con- gress in January, 1953, and thereafter bien- nially on the extent to which the provisions and recommendations of the Servicemen's Voting Act have been executed by the re- spective States. The Committee report further recommends that the Secretary of Defense gather and publish certain statis- tical data relating to ballot applications, the number of executed ballots received, and the approximate number of servicemen of voting age in the armed forces from each State. These recommendations appear to have merit, and I hope you will consider them carefully, and determine what steps may be appropriate to carry them out. From time to time, I hope you will report to me on the progress which is being made in the field of soldier voting. Only through continued and vigorous action can we make sure that the men and women of the armed forces will have the chance to exercise one of the great rights which they are now, in many cases, risking their lives to defend. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Robert A. Lovett, The Secretary of Defense] note: See also Items 68, 124. 97 Remarks in Omaha on the Floods in the Upper Missouri and Mississippi Valleys. April 16, 1952 IT IS a very great honor for me to be re- ceived by the Governors of seven of the great States of this community. Won't you please be seated, Governors. You don't want to stand up all the time while I'm "twirlin off." This situation is a very, very acute one. It is not new. Last year the lower valley had a disaster almost as — well, it was the worst one in the history of that end of the valley; and this, apparently, is — according to General Pick — the worst one at this end of the valley. The Mississippi is on a rampage over on the other side of the States of Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri, and there isn't any necessity for these things happening. Gen- eral Pick and I have been working on a flood control plan for the valley from Min- nesota to the Gulf of Mexico, and from Pitts- burgh to Denver. Since 1926 — isn't that right, General Pick? — a concrete plan has been presented for flood control in the whole valley from Pittsburgh to Denver, and from Minnesota to the Gulf. The southern end of that plan — the Mis- sissippi River from Cairo, 111., to the Gulf — has been fixed. I don't think there is any chance of a disastrous flood in the southern part of the Mississippi valley, for the simple reason that after 1927, having Southern Senators and Congressmen in control of the committees of the House and the Senate, the southern Mississippi was fixed. Now it has been a very difficult matter to get the Governors of the upper reaches of this valley — the States which compose the drainage basin of the Missouri and the Mississippi — to come together and under- stand just exactly what is necessary, if we are going to have a flood control program that will work. Last year I went from one end of the flood area to the other, from St. Louis, Mo., to Salina, Kans., and Miami, Okla., and then back. And when I understood from Gen- eral Pick just what a disastrous situation was developing in the upper Mississippi and the upper reaches of the Missouri, I felt it was my duty to come out here and try to get an educational program put on, so that even- tually we can have an arrangement that will prevent such things from happening in the future. And it can be done. General Pick has just told you exactly how it can be done in the Missouri basin. And 267 [97] April 16 Public Papers of the Presidents the same thing can be done in the Missis- sippi basin above St. Louis. The same thing can be done in the tributaries of the rivers in Illinois, Indiana — in Nebraska, in Kansas, and in Missouri, and we won't have a situ- ation like this now. These two awful floods — the one taking place now, and the one which took place last year — have caused enough damage to have paid for the necessities to prevent them five times over — maybe six. And it seems to me that that is good sense and good busi- ness. And I want the States in this basin to cooperate with the Federal Government from now on to get that job done. One of the Governors asked me if I was trying to make lobbyists out of the Gover- nors— and I am. I am trying to make lobby- ists out of the Governors, because the stake that they have in this is the welfare of their constituents in every one of these States. I am not running for office. I am out here as a public servant of the people of the United States of America. I am the lobbyist for 155 million people, who have no lobbyist in Washington. I represent them all. Each one of these Governors represents all the people in his State. Every one of them are patriotic citizens — and fine gentlemen. I have just met some of them. Some of them I have known for a long time. I want this thing driven home. I want to get this job done. There isn't any sense in our fooling around any longer with it. Since 1903 I have been flood-conscious. I saw that flood from a bluff in Kansas City. I saw the one last year, all the way up from St. Louis to the head of it — I walked through the ruined parts of it. There was quite a loss of life in that flood last year. General Pick tells me there has been no loss of life in this flood so far, and I hope there won't be any. But, when you see these wonderful farm buildings all under water, when you see cities and towns with their business districts under water, as I saw this morning, then you understand that were it not for some forehandedness, Omaha right this minute would have its industrial district almost com- pletely washed out. I hope that won't hap- pen. I hope it will be controlled and that this won't happen. The only reason that it won't happen is because we are a little forehanded here and have made some construction that ought to have been made from the head of the river — the Missouri river to its mouth, and from the head of the Mississippi river to Cairo, 111., and those little rivers in Illinois and Indiana that contribute to disaster and loss. I hope — I sincerely hope — that this in- structive meeting which we have had with General Pick of the Engineers, who has explained the whole situation to us, will have the effect that will cause us to get this job done. Now we have got an economy wave on in the Congress. I had an economy wave before the budget went to the Congress. They have been wiping out some of these most important projects which I put into the budget. Two of these up-river dams that General Pick was talking about have been almost completely taken out of the construction program. That should not be done. I made the budget just as tight as it could be. I put in everything for flood control that I thought we could possibly stand. And I hope — and I am doing a little lobbying myself now — that the Congress will stick to that budget on flood control which I sent to them. Now, my friends, you know the facts. I have seen this thing — I have seen every great flood that this country has ever had in this valley. This is the breadbasket of the Nation. The breadbasket certainly should be protected. And it can be pro- tected. That doesn't mean that I am not for proj- ects that are necessary in every other part of the country. I was out in Oregon and Washington when the Columbia River caused so much damage out there, and when the Willamette River was on a rampage. I am just as anxious to see that stopped, I am just as anxious to see flood situations 268 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 17 [98] out in the Rio Grande Valley met as I am to see this one met, because I have, as I said, a nationwide public service job. That's all I do. That's all I am, is the Nation's public servant, to see that we can do what is best for the most people. I didn't come out here to make you a Democratic speech, either. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 2:25 p.m. at the Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, Nebr. The seven Governors that met with the Presi- dent were Val Peterson of Nebraska, Sigurd Ander- son of South Dakota, C. Norman Brunsdale of North Dakota, William S. Beardsley of Iowa, Walter J. Kohler, Jr. of Wisconsin, C. Elmer Anderson of Minnesota, and Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. During his remarks the President referred to Lt. Gen. Lewis A. Pick, Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. For further information on the President's 1951 flood program in the Midwest, see 1951 volume, this series, Items 158, 162, 163/183, 185, 196. 98 The President's News Conference of April 17, 1952 [Held in the National Museum and attended by members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors as well as the regular White House correspondents.] mr. short.1 I will leave it to the President to welcome you, but I have a brief announce- ment to make. [1.] This is a regular press conference, and the usual rules will apply. For the benefit of those who are not familiar with the rules, they are: (1) Unless specified to the contrary, you can write anything that is said here. (2) No direct quotations on the President, unless specifically authorized. The correspondents have requested that the editors identify themselves when they ask a question, and I hope that the corre- spondents will do the same for the editors. Mr. Jones,2 the President of the Society, will wind up the questioning by the editors, and that will be the signal to the corre- spondents to ask their questions. [2.] Q. Mr. Jones: Mr. President, on be- half of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, I just want to express our apprecia- tion for your treatment of us in the past. You have addressed our banquets, our luncheons, and you have gone out of your 1 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. 2 Alexander F. Jones of the Syracuse Herald- Journal, president of the American Society of News- paper Editors. way to be very kind, and we greatly appre- ciate this opportunity, because it is the last time that we are going to meet you as President. And I am going to take the opportunity of asking you the first question, if you don't mind, and that is, I wonder if you would care to comment on your political philos- ophy in retiring, irrespective of any per- sonal considerations ? the president. I — first, before I answer Mr. Jones' question, I am happy to have you here. I hope you enjoyed the trip to the rehabilitated President's house, and that you got to see everything you wanted to see up there. You will find out, if you look closely, that you have to inquire where any changes have taken place. My only difficulty now is to find my shirts and socks — which I will probably be able to do by the time we get ready to move out. This, by the way — for your information — is the 300th press conference which I have held since I have been President of the United States. I want to say to Mr. Jones that I have been a very close student of the Presidency of the United States, and also of the individual Presidents who have occupied the place since Washington's time. And my reason for not running again is based on the fact that I don't think that any man — I don't care how good he is — is indis- 269 [98] April 17 Public Papers of the Presidents pensable in any job. The Presidency itself is a continuing office, the greatest office in the history of the world, and that office ought to be continuing as far as individuals are concerned. And another thing in connection with it. When a man has been in this very respon- sible position for 8 years, which I will prac- tically have been by the 20th day of next January, he has — or should have by that time — made all the contribution that he pos- sibly can to the welfare of the Nation. He has either done it well, or he has done it not well. I have tried my best to give the Nation everything I had in me. There are a great many people — I expect a million in the country — who could have done the job bet- ter than I did it. But, I had the job, and I had to do it. And I always quote one epitaph which is on a tombstone in the cemetery at Tombstone, Ariz. It says, "Here lies Jack Williams, he done his damndest." [Laughter] I think that is the greatest epitaph that a man can have. When he gives everything that is in him to the job that he has before him, that's all you can ask of him. And that's what I have tried to do.3 Now I am ready for your questions. [3.] Q. A. Reed Sarratt, Jr., Winston- Salem (N.C.) Journal-Sentinel: Mr. Presi- dent, Mr. Newbold Morris addressed us at lunch today, and said he didn't know why he had been fired.4 I wonder if you could tell us why ? the president. That is a question that I will have to avoid answering — I'm sorry. If he doesn't know why, there is no reason for my telling him. [4.] Q. Barry Bingham, Louisville (Ky.) Courier-Journal: Mr. President, would you say how you feel about the withdrawal of Governor Stevenson5 from the presidential race? the president. I think Governor Steven- son is a good man. I think he would have made a good candidate for President, but he has control of his own actions, and the only comment I can make on it is that I am sorry he did not go into the Democratic convention. [5.] Q. (Name inaudible), Radio Rich- mond: Mr. President, more than a year ago, sir, you stated that you would have a hand in drawing up the platform for the next convention. In this coming platform, will there be a compulsory FEPC ? the president. I read the Democratic platform on March 29th. If you will read that speech,6 you will know what it is going to be. [6.] Q. Lester Markel, New York Times: Mr. President, what do you think ought to be done with ex-Presidents? [Laughter] the president. You know, on their im- mediate retirement, there are a lot of people would like just to put a rock around them and put them in the Potomac River right out here. But I think all ex-Presidents — and I hope to be one for some time — can make a con- tribution to the welfare of the country. Herbert Hoover has made a contribution to the welfare of this country. He did a wonderful job for me in 1946, and he also served as chairman of the commission which went into the reorganization of the Gov- ernment.7 I think every man who has held this posi- tion accumulates knowledge that ought to be available for the whole country, and I ex- pect to do whatever I am asked to do, just like these people have done for me while I have been President. [7.] Q. Walter Jones, McClatchy News- papers in California: Mr. President, I have 3 The President's opening statement was released by the White House later in the day. * See Item 75 [2, 4]. 5 Governor Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. 6 See Item 69. 7 In 1946 Mr. Hoover served as Honorary Chair- man of the Famine Emergency Committee and in 1947-49 was Chairman of the Commission on Or- ganization of the Executive Branch of the Govern- ment. 270 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 17 [98] heard some talk in Washington since I ar- rived on Monday, that some people are pro- posing that if the Republican convention nominates General Eisenhower, that the Democrats should do the same thing. Would you care to express an opinion on that? the president. No comment on that. [Laughter] [8.] Q. A. M. Piper, Council Bluffs (Iowa) Nonpareil: Mr. President, you were over our town yesterday, and I wonder if you would like to say what you think we can do to avoid another catastrophe such as the one facing us now? the president. Back in 1926, General Pick and I — he then was the engineer for the Missouri River, stationed at Kansas City — went into the flood situation from the head- waters of the Missouri, and the headwaters of the Mississippi to Cairo, 111. General Pick at that time began to work on a plan, particularly a plan for the Missouri River basin as a whole. It drains, I believe he told 11s yesterday, some 600,000 square miles. He finally came up with a plan — a compromise plan it was — he and Mr. Sloan came along with a plan, and we have been trying to im- plement that plan.8 It hasn't been with very much energy or with very much prompt- ness that that plan has been implemented. Had that plan been completed — I mean, the whole thing, which affects all the small rivers as well as the Missouri itself — I think last year's disaster, and this one, too, could have been avoided. It seems that this country has a peculiar complex. They never take things that 8Lt. Gen. Lewis A. Pick, Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, and William G. Sloan, for- merly with the Bureau of Reclamation, were joint authors of the Pick-Sloan plan for the Missouri Valley. The Corps of Engineers was given respon- sibility for determining the capacity of main-stem and tributary reservoirs for flood control and navi- gation. The Bureau of Reclamation assumed responsibility for determining the capacities of reser- voirs for irrigation purposes. The plan was ap- proved by Congress on December 22, 1944 (sec. 9, 58 Stat. 891). might happen and try to do something about them before they happen. They always have to be in the midst of a disaster before they go to work and do what ought to be done to meet the situation. I have had exactly the same trouble with the national defense program. I hope there will be no letdown on the national defense program. And I hope we can finish this preliminary program for those big rivers out there in the Middle West, because that is the breadbasket of the Nation, as I said yesterday,9 and we ought to take care of them. Had it not been for that breadbasket working full steam ahead during the Sec- ond World War, we could have lost the war. And that means something to the world and to us. And I am sorry that it takes some- thing like — such as happened on the lower Missouri last year, and such as has hap- pened on the upper Missouri this year, and the upper Mississippi this year — to wake people up to the fact that something ought to be done to meet these situations. And they can be met. [9.] Q. Raymond A. McConnell, Jr., Lincoln (Nebr.) State Journal: Mr. Presi- dent, in urging an overall program for the Missouri basin breadbasket, do you mean to include in addition to the Pick-Sloan plan, the Department of Agriculture plans for proper land management, conservation, and small watershed treatment? the president. It all goes together. Q. And a second part of this question, sir — in saying at Omaha that the Governors should join you in getting action now and should stop fooling around, did you mean to imply abandonment of the policy by which, since the outbreak of the Korean war, the Budget Bureau has impounded several millions of dollars of appropriated funds ? the president. It had no connection with that whatever. We have had in the Missouri Valley 9 Governors — I believe it's 9, or 11 — that are affected by this flood control 8 See Item 97. 271 [98] April 17 Public Papers of the Presidents plan, and most of them have been dragging their feet for the last 25 years. I just want them to pick their feet off the ground and help me to get started on a plan. But that has no relationship whatever with the budget. [10.] Q. Coleman Harwell, Nashville Tennessean: Mr. President, you have stated that the prevention of world war III was one of the accomplishments of your administra- tion. Would you care to comment, sir, as to what you feel is your greatest contribution on the domestic policy ? the president. Will you please ask that question again, I couldn't hear? Q. Mr. Harwell: You have stated that the major contribution of your administration was the prevention of world war III. Would you care to comment as to what you feel has been the greatest contribution of your administration on the domestic front? the president. Yes, I will be glad to do that, for I think it's equally as great a con- tribution. We have been able to keep em- ployment at full tilt. We have been able to fix the income of the country so that it's fairly distributed. The farmers are in bet- ter shape than they have ever been in be- fore— you have given me a chance now to make a political speech! Labor is in better shape than it has ever been in before, and so is management and industry. They never had such glowing times as they have had over the last 5 or 6 years. I think that is the greatest contribution I have made to the domestic situation. An even economy, well-balanced, so that everybody has a fair chance. [11.] Q. {Name inaudible): Mr. Presi- dent, what do you consider is the paramount issue of the 1952 election? the president. The paramount issue of the 1952 election is the defense program to keep peace in the world, and to keep this economy of ours on an even keel. They all go together. If one fails, they will all fail. [12.] Q. Herbert Brucker, Hartford Courant: Mr. President, do you think the economy can be kept on that even keel with- out the rearmament program? the president. Yes, of course I do. When the rearmament program is finished, if we can go ahead with the improvement of the underdeveloped areas of the world, and even raise the standard of living of the underde- veloped countries of this world at least 2 percent, our production machine can never stop in the next 25 years. [13.] Q. Colvin T. Leonard, Greens- boro (N.C.) Record: Mr. President, I don't want to seem to be ridiculous, but a certain news agency sent a story down to North Carolina the other day, to the effect that rumors are going around Washington that you were coming to the University of North Carolina to teach history. Do you have any comment? the president. Well, sir — I will tell you something about that. I am no historian. I have no college degrees except honorary ones that they have given me since I have been in the Senate and President of the United States, and I don't believe there is any college in the country that would con- sider me qualified to teach history — or any- thing else. [Laughter] Q. Arthur V. Burrowes, St. Joseph (Mo.) News-Press the president. I know you. Q. Mr. Burrowes: Mr. President, in view of what you have said, you know of course, that Walter Williams, president — late presi- dent of Missouri University — never had a college degree except an honorary one. There has been much talk in Missouri of offering the presidency to the present Gov- ernor of Missouri, your friend Forrest Smith. Would you consider the presidency of the University of Missouri ? the president. I don't think I can. I don't think your Republican editor of that St. Joseph paper ought to come down here and try to undercut my Democratic Gov- ernor. [Laughter] [14.] Q. (Name inaudible): Mr. Presi- dent, if you can seize the steel mills under 272 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 17 [98] your inherent powers, can you, in your opinion, also seize the newspapers and /or the radio stations? the president. Under similar circum- stances the President of the United States has to act for whatever is for the best of the country. That's the answer to your ques- tion.10 [15.] Q. McClellan Van der Veer, Bir- mingham News: Mr. President, you spoke of 8 years as being the limit for one man in the Presidency. the president. It is constitutional. Q. Do you think there is any limit for one party remaining continuously in power — [laughter] the president. No, I don't. As long as that party makes the country work for the most people and their benefit, that party can stay in power as long as they can do that. I do have some ideas about — since the President is limited by constitutional amendment to two terms, it doesn't affect me, however, but I think it is ethical that I should recognize it. I think there are some other limitations on terms in Government that would be very helpful to the welfare of the country. [Laughter] [16.] Q. Charles E. Gallagher, Lynn (Mass.) Item: Mr. President, I wonder if you would comment on what you consider the greatest contribution the average layman could make to his country in the present conditions ? the president. Yes. I think the average person ought to inform himself fully as to just exactly what the United Nations stands for, what it means to world peace. And he himself ought to try in every way he pos- sibly can to make his own individual con- tribution to the welfare of the country, lo- cally in his local community, in his city community, in his county community, and in his State, and in his Nation. I think every citizen in the United States owes it to himself to become a first-class politician. And politics in this country, under our form, °See also Item 107 [1, 2, 8], is government. And when you try to cast aspersions on a politician, you are not doing yourself or your country any good. I am a politician, and I am proud of it. [17.] Q. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Tulsa Tribune: Mr. President, do you see any progress toward a satisfactory peace setde- ment in Korea? the president. I can't comment on that. [18.] Q. Robert W. Akers, Beaumont (Tex.) Enterprise: Mr. President, you were speaking of citizens interesting themselves in politics. The Democrats in Texas and Louisiana and the South find that the only major candidates now left in the running for the Democratic side of the November election are now southerners, a very remark- able situation. Now, I would like to ask you, sir, as the number one Democrat — I mean this quite seriously — do you think it is conceivable that a southerner could be nomi- nated against the will of the Northern Democrats? the president. A southerner could be nominated if he is willing to run on the Democratic platform. And he could be elected if he would run on the Democratic platform. [Laughter] You can't be a Democrat with reservations, however. [19.] Q. Mr. President, may I state, sir, when I asked the question earlier in the day, I overlooked the fact that Mr. Short said we should identify ourselves. It was Radio Richmond which asked the question. the president. I understand. We all know you. But these editors don't. I am glad you made that announcement. Now gentlemen, are you ready for the re- porters to go to work on me ? [20.] Q. Frank A. Knight, Charleston ( W. Va.) Gazette: To what do you attribute the fact that newspaper editors polled are pretty bad in picking presidential winners? the president. I will tell you exactly what is the matter with them. They don't know anything about politics. And I am trying to tell you to learn something about it. [Laughter] [21.] Q. Lenoir Chambers, Norfolk Vir- 273 [98] April 17 Public Papers of the Presidents ginian-Pilot: Mr. President, I think it is a fact that a large portion of the Democratic Party looks to you for leadership in the choice of a candidate. Would you care to say whether you will try to express your views as to a wise choice for the party on a candidate? the president. Well, I have the same right as every other Democrat in the United States. I have a right to express my opinion when the time comes. The time is not now. You reporters got anything to add to this now? I think these editors have run dry. [Laughter] [22.] Q. Anthony H. Leviero, New York Times: May we have permission to quote your opening remarks on the Presidency — quote you directly? the president. Yes, you have my permis- sion. Q. Merriman Smith, United Press Asso- ciations: Well, that raises the question, how far does that quote run now? the president. That's the answer — it runs until the first question was asked after Mr. Jones'. [23.] Q. Mr. President, Averell Harri- man the president. Tell these people who you are. [Laughter] Q. Edward T. Folliard, Washington Post: has announced that he is a candi- date for the Presidency. Do you think he is well qualified, Mr. President? the president. I do. I think Averell Harriman is one of the most patriotic citi- zens in the country, and an able one. [24.] Q. Carl McCardle, Philadelphia Evening Bulletin: Do you have any com- ment, sir, on Senator Douglas' endorsement of Senator Kefauver for the Presidency ? the president. No comment. Every man is entitled to his own opinion. [25.] Q. Fred Perkins, Scripps-How- ard: Sir, in the steel situation, do you think Secretary Sawyer should impose the Wage Board's settlement in full or in part on the steel companies: the president. I have no comment — I have no comment to make on that. That is a matter for negotiation. Q. Sir, it is a matter for Mr. Sawyer to decide. the president. It is not. The thing has to be decided by the President of the United States in the long run. The buck always comes to my desk and I meet it. But I am not ready to comment on it now. [26.] Q. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald: the president. Yes, May? Q. Sometimes you pick on us at the press conferences, and frequently you say you can't get things in the papers. Why don't you now tell the editors your complaints about us and them? [Laughter] the president. May, my complaints usu- ally— always are specific, and I haven't one today on which to bounce you. [27.] Q. [Name inaudible], Washing- ton Daily News: Mr. President, how long can Washington get along without a Regis- ter of Deeds? the president. Oh, it can get along for- ever, as far as I am concerned. [Laughter] What did you want, Smitty? [28.] Q. Merriman Smith, United Press Associations: Mr. President, the D.A.R. to- day said that they thought there ought to be an inspection of the gold supplies at Fort Knox. What do you think of that? the president. Well, Smitty, I will rec- ognize a committee from the D.A.R.'s and give them a pass so that they can go down and look at it, if they want to. [29.] Q. Edward T. Folliard: Mr. Presi- dent, I would like to go back to something you said in response to Mr. Jones' question. Did you, sir, ever intend to run for a third term? the president. I never did. I made up my mind at least 3 months after I got the second term that I didn't think it would be right. [30.] Q. Raymond P. Brandt, St. Louis 274 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 17 [98] Post-Dispatch: Mr. President, have you read Mr. Byrnes' u article in Collier's that is com- ing out tomorrow? the president. No, I haven't. Q. Have you had any intimation about it? the president. No. I know nothing about it, Pete. [31.] Q. Mr. President, do you think Averell Harriman, or any potential Demo- crat has the same sort of political "moxey" that you had in 1948, or that "Ike" Eisen- hower might have in 1952? the president. Well now, that depends altogether on the impression they make on the voters. You have got to go out and sell the voters a bill of goods. I went 31,700 miles, and made 355 appearances, and spoke to 7 million people, and saw 7 million more, spoke to 30 million people over the radio, and sold them a bill of goods, and I became the President. [Laughter and applause] [32.] Q. Alan S. Emory, Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times: Mr. President, last week, or rather this week, you met with some Canadian officials on the St. Lawrence River project. the president. That is correct. Q. When they came out, Foreign Minis- ter Lester Pearson issued a statement. I would like to know on the basis of that, first, whether you have agreed to what you last termed your second best choice on the St. Lawrence, in other words, an alternating seaway; and second, in that event, whether you have decided as to whether a Federal agency or New York State could build the power dam on the United States part of the river, and if so, which one? the president. I am very anxious for the seaway to be built, and for the power to be developed. We have been 21 years negotiat- ing with Canada. Canada has been very patient with us. They came up with the proposition that they would like to build the 11 The article by Governor James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, former Secretary of State, appeared in the April 26 edition of Collier's magazine. seaway, and that they would like to make arrangements to develop the power. And I am very anxious that the Congress take im- mediate action to go ahead with the agree- ment that was made in 194 1. If they don't, I am going to cooperate with Canada on their construction of the seaway, because we must have it. And when we come to the power development, I will cross that bridge when I get to it. [33-] Q- Mr. President, I am Sarah Mc- Clendon. I represent several Texas papers, and the bosses are here, so I will just say I am from Texas papers. Would you please com- ment on another figure who withdrew this week — Senator Tom Connally. He isn't going to run for the Senate again. Would you care to make some remarks about that? the president. Senator Connally came to see me last Sunday morning, and told me that he did not expect to file for the Sen- ate in Texas. I was very sad about that. Senator Connally was on my investigating committee in the Senate. I was on his Pub- lic Buildings and Grounds Committee when I first went to the Senate. Senator Con- nally and I developed a plan to build a tre- mendous auditorium here in the city of Washington. We also developed a plan to finish the Capitol Building, which has never been finished, it is still — the dome still hangs in the air. My relations with Senator Con- nally have been of the finest, and I really am sorry to see him quit. [34.] Q. Merriman Smith: Mr. Presi- dent, some of us got the impression yester- day at Omaha that you had some specific plan of action regarding flood relief — some- thing new that you were going to do. Is that correct? the president. We are still — General Pick and I are always improving the plans for flood control in that great valley from Pitts- burgh to Denver and from Minnesota to the Gulf. Q. Raymond P. Brandt: Mr. President, there was a report that you were going to 275 [98] April 17 Public Papers of the Presidents take flood control away from the Army Engi- neers and give it to Interior. Is there any- thing to that? the president. There was a recommen- dation by the Hoover Commission for put- ting the civil part of the engineering business under one head. That is under considera- tion, as it always has been since the report came in.12 Q. Mr. Brandt: One story said it might go up very shortly as one of your recom- mendations? the president. It is not ready yet. Q. Mr. Brandt: It is not ready yet? the president. Whenever we get it in shape, I am going to send it up. Q. Mr. President Q. Mr. President, Ruth Montgomery Q. Mr. President the president. Well now, I can't talk to three at once. Let me talk to the lady first over here, Tony, and then I will talk to you. [35.] Q. Ruth Montgomery, New York Daily News: Mr. President, you made a very fine speech last week against colonialism,13 and then our United States delegate at the United Nations refused to vote to hear the Tunisian case the president. Now you — you can't bring up a question like that at this press confer- ence. It has no place here, and I'm sorry. You have to know all the facts, and all the details, before you can come to a sane con- clusion on this thing. And you don't know all the facts, and I do — and I can't comment on it. What is it, Tony? [36.] Q. Ernest Vaccaro, Associated Press: Mr. President, you were questioned a little while ago about Newbold Morris not knowing why he was fired. You said that was a question he would have to answer. Actually, the firing was done by the Attor- ney General. Is that correct? the president. That is correct. Who was it down here — Tony? 12 See Item 107 [6]. 13 See Item 81. [37.] Q. Anthony H. Leviero, New York Times: Mr. President, one of our for- eign colleagues would like your comments on the visit of the Swedish Prime Minister. the president. I had a very, very fine visit with the Prime Minister of Sweden.14 He is a grand gentleman. And the Ambassa- dor to us from Sweden was at the luncheon, and the Secretary of State w told a good story which I am going to repeat — I haven't got his permission for it, but I am going to re- peat it. He said there was a certain young man in the Foreign Service in Sweden, who was go- ing on a weekend vacation with his wife. And two of the Foreign Service people in Sweden who were about the same rank he was — maybe down on the fourth or fifth level in the Foreign Service — came down to see him off. The boat pulled out and took these two Swedes with him. They didn't have an overnight bag with them, and so the — Dean said they had to make use of his bathroom every morning. And they had a grand weekend. And one of those young Swedes is now the Ambassador from Sweden to the United States, and the other young fel- low is the Secretary of State of the United States. [Laughter] [38.] Q. Carl McCardle: Mr. President, what do you think of the cuts Congress has made in the defense appropriation? the president. Well, I will give you my opinion when the bill gets to me. You see, it is in the formative stage right now. What I asked for in the Budget is what we ought to have, but I can't comment on what Con- gress has done until it gets around to me, and then I will comment in no uncertain terms. [39-] Q« Mr. President, I understood you to say awhile ago that you were going to try to do what people wanted you to do. 14 Tage Erlander, Prime Minister of Sweden, visited the President on April 14. He was accompanied by Erik Boheman, Swedish Ambassador to the United States. 15 Dean Acheson. 276 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 17 [98] Well, what if a considerable number of peo- ple in Missouri would like to have you back as a Senator again? the president. Well, there is an ethical situation in connection with that that bothers me. Nothing in the world would please me better than to go back to the United States Senate. I had the best time of my life while I was there, but I don't think it would be proper for the President of the United States — and this job never ceases from 5:30 in the morning until 11:30 at night while I am in it — to use that powerful office to get himself elected to another one. That is the reason I refuse to run for the Senate in Missouri. Q. Ben H. Reese, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Spring Lake, N.J. the president. How did you get way up there ? [ Laugh ter] Q. Mr. President, in the next senatorial campaign in Missouri, and you were relieved of your present responsibility, would you consider being a candidate for Senator from the same State? the president. Oh, I would love to be a candidate for the Senate from Missouri, but I wouldn't run against Tom Hennings.16 He comes up next. What did you want to say? [40.] Q. Frank Bourgholtzer, National Broadcasting Co.: Mr. President, the Am- bassador to Austria, Mr. Donnelly,17 left your office this morning, and he was asked about the Russian peace offensive. He said he thought that if the Russians wanted to dem- onstrate a will for peace, they would settle on the Austrian peace treaty first. Is that your opinion, sir? the president. They should settle the Austrian peace treaty, and they should accept the arms limitation agreement which we have been trying to get them to accept for the last 5 years, if they really mean peace. [41.] Q. Paul Leach, Chicago Daily News "Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., of Missouri. 17 Walter J. Donnelly, U.S. Ambassador to Austria. the president. How are you, Paul? Q. Mr. President, Senator Douglas this morning, in making his announcement on Kefauver, said that he had — or he would recommend to the Democrats of Illinois that they abandon the unit rule controlling dele- gations to national conventions, on the ground that they are no longer necessary, since the two-thirds rule has been abolished. Have you any comment on continuing or abolishing the unit rule in national conven- tions ? the president. That is a matter for each State to decide for itself. I can't comment on what Illinois ought to do with its delegation. [42.] Q. (Name inaudible): Mr. Presi- dent, you commented today on Mr. Harri- man and also on Governor Stevenson. I wonder if you would comment for us on your opinion of Senator Kefauver as a the president. I don't think it's up to me to analyze all the candidates in the race on either side of the ticket. I am very fond of Senator Kefauver. He came to see me be- fore he started to run. The Democratic National Convention will have to settle who is to be the candidate. I am not going to pick him here for you. Q. Bert Andrews, New York Herald- Tribune: Mr. President, did you mean that you are going to pick the candidate at the convention, sir? [Laughter] the president. Now you know, you are one of these speculative fellows, Bert, and you like to make something out of every- thing I say. You can do whatever you please with it. [Laughter] Q. Paul Leach: That raises a legitimate question, Mr. President. Do you intend the president. You mean Bert's wasn't legitimate? [More laughter] Q. Do you expect to attend the Demo- cratic convention at Chicago? the president. I don't think that would be ethical, either, for the President to go. And everybody would say he had gone there to dominate the convention. I don't have 277 55-672—i66 [98] April 17 Public Papers of the Presidents any ambition to do that at all. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. You're welcome. note: President Truman's three hundredth news conference was held in the National Museum Audi- torium in Washington at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 17, 1952. The conference was held for the American Society of Newspaper Editors as well as the regular White House newspaper correspondents. Motion pictures and still photographs were taken at the conference. 99 Remarks Upon Receiving a Gift for the White House Presented by the French Ambassador. April 18, 1952 THANK YOU very much, Mr. Ambassa- dor. We shall place this beautiful clock and candelabra in the Red Room, and every visitor who goes through the White House will see it and thank the people of France, and the President of France, for giving it to us. note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. on the North Portico of the White House to Henri Bonnet, French Ambassador to the United States. In making the presentation the Ambassador said: "Mr. President: "In the name of President Vincent Auriol, I have great pleasure in presenting to you for the renovated White House this musical clock and two candelabra as a token of the gratitude and friendship of the French people for the people of the United States. "The clock and the candelabra were both ac- quired especially by the President of France for this occasion. The clock is mounted on a white marble base and is supported by two cupids astride bronze animals. Before the hour, the clock plays pastoral music of the 18th Century ("ariettes and musettes") on a miniature organ hidden in a gold case. It is the work of sculptor Gouttiere, one of the celebrated masters of that period." 100 Remarks to Members o£ the Associated Church Press. April 18, 1952 THANK YOU very much. I have been in the midst of the press for the last 2 days. I had 450 editors on my hands yesterday after- noon, and they asked me everything from Genesis to Revelations. I don't know whether I gave them the right answers or not. It is a pleasure indeed to have you here. I hope you have enjoyed your visit to Wash- ington. I hope you have found out some of the fundamentals of your Government. I told the editors yesterday, when they asked me why they were wrong on their guesses on what happens in politics, that they were not politicians, that every American citizen ought to be a politician. In our form of government, every man has his responsibility, locally with his city, his county, his State, and his Nation. And if he doesn't take that in- terest, and things do not go to suit him, there is nobody to blame but himself. Now you people are trying to give the coming and rising generation an idea of what the future means to them, not only the fu- ture in this world but the future in the world to come. Nevertheless, if you don't take an interest in your local government, in your county government, in your State govern- ment, and in your National Government, if things go wrong, there is nobody to blame but you — because you are the Government of the United States. The power rests with the people. And I think I can speak from experience, because in 1948 I proved conclu- sively that when a man has a program and goes out and tells the people what that pro- gram is, they will go along with him and believe with him in it. Now you are doing a great work. I hope you will continue it. But don't forget that one of the adjuncts of the work that you are doing is your own Government. You must 278 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 18 [101] know something about it. You must do something about it. And I hope you will do just that. It is a pleasure to me today to have you here. I hope you have had an enjoyable visit. I hope you will get some good out of it. Everybody can get good out of attaining knowledge and information. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:23 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. IOI Address at the Dedication of the New AMVETS Headquarters in Washington. April 18, 1952 Mr. Commander, Secretary of Defense, dis- tinguished guests: I could name everybody up here. They should be named, but then I wouldn't get my speech in if I did. I am glad to take part in the dedication of this new headquarters of the AMVETS. Your organization is young and vigorous. You are making a real contribution to the solution of the problems we face in the troubled world of today. I have noticed that the AMVETS do not approach things from the narrow standpoint of immediate interest to the veterans. Instead, you are looking at things in terms of the general public interest. And that is what every American citizen ought to do. With your World War II experience, you understand as well as any other group I know, the kind of world in which we live, and what we have to do to make a better world. You understand why we have to work hard for world peace. You under- stand why we must have a world peace orga- nization and why we must have friends and allies among the other free nations of the world. The war in which you fought was a great joint effort against tyranny and aggression. The United Nations was born out of that war. You know that we could not have won that war the way we did without the help of our allies. You believe, as I believe, that an organization of free nations is the best way to prevent aggression. And the way to keep war from breaking out again is to have an organization of the free na- tions of the world banded together for peace. Today, the things you fought for are threatened again — this time by Soviet tyr- anny. It has been made perfecdy clear to us that we cannot expect to keep our freedom unless we are prepared to defend it. The security of our Nation, and the security of the whole free world is at stake. In spite of these facts, there is a serious movement afoot to slash our programs for national security. We are being told that we can't afford to be strong — that taxes are too high and our economy won't stand it. This movement is very dangerous and it seems to me that you veterans have a special responsibility to help head it off and to keep the country on the right track. You under- stand the importance of our national security and I am sure you will help the Government to meet that responsibility. Of course, our national security program costs a lot of money. We cannot build the finest and the most modern planes — we can't build the best tanks and the best ships — without spending money. Those things don't just grow on trees. You have to create them. But it is not true that our national secu- rity program costs so much that it will wreck the economy. On the contrary, the civilian side of our economy is stronger than it has ever been. Just look around you, you can see for yourself. There is nothing weak about a national income of $280 billion. And even after taxes — and I am getting this in strong this time — after taxes most Amer- icans have a better standard of living today 279 [ioi] April 18 Public Papers of the Presidents than they ever had before in the history of the world. We have the greatest and the best standard of living of any people that ever came to pass in the history of the world. And the very fact that you can afford to pay these taxes shows that you have got a good standard of living. Of course, nobody likes to pay taxes. They are high — higher than I would like to see them — higher than they should be for any reason other than national safety. But they are not wrecking the economy. Far from it. The fact is our economy is producing more than ever before in our history — and that is more than ever before in the history of the world. But, you must bear this in mind: This is an election year. And some people believe it is good politics to appear to be more con- cerned about high taxes than about having a firm national defense. Some people think the voters are more interested in their taxes than they are in the safety of our boys over- seas. And so the drive to slash our defense budget goes on and on and on. And it's a bunch of hooey. Of course, we are all in favor of real econ- omy. I did a good deal of work on that subject in the last war, and I am credited with having saved the Government $15 bil- lion in that investigation I made. But I wasn't trying to send anybody to jail, I was trying to get this thing to work efficiently, and I hope that we can continue to do just that. I know there can be a lot of waste in military operations. Nobody knows it better than I do, because I have been through it all. But there is a difference between cutting out waste — which is a careful, selective job — and just arbitrarily slashing appropriations in an effort to impress the voters back home. Now the United States Senate is as put out as anybody can be, because they think the House is going back home during this vaca- tion, and say, "Look what we did, and the Senate is going to put it back." Well, if the Senate doesn't put it back, we are going to be in an awful fix. And I think the truth will get out because I am going to see that it does. The trouble with the careful work of cut- ting out waste is that it doesn't get many headlines. It is not a publicity stunt, this thing of doing things right. But slashing appropriations — that gets a headline. Slash- ing appropriations is fine, until the day comes when we find that we don't have the planes, we don't have the tanks, we don't have the guns that we need to meet the situation with which we are faced. And then we have to pay for those headlines — not in money but in lives — in the lives of our soldiers, sail- ors, and marines. That is not right. Right now, two of the most vital elements in our national security are before the Con- gress for action. One of these measures is the military appropriation bill, and the other is the mutual security program. You know, there is an economy wave — a fake economy wave on in the Congress. Well, I had my own economy wave before the Budget was ever sent to the Congress. And I gave these heads of these departments of national defense quite a pain in the neck before I sent that Budget down. The amounts needed for national security were cut to the bone before they were put into the Budget. It's an honest Budget, and don't let anybody tell you anything else. If they are cut much more, we will be opening up some big holes in our defense and inviting new attacks by the forces of aggression. Just recently, the House of Representatives voted to cut our national defense expendi- tures between $4 and $6 billion in the next fiscal year. My, what a stump speech that will make when they go back to run for reelection. How did the House of Representatives de- cide to make a cut like this? Did they say, "We have been over the whole defense pro- gram, and we think you ought to plan some- thing smaller?" No, no, they didn't say anything like that. They said, "This pro- gram is all right — but we won't provide the money to put it over." They said, "We won't even let you use the money we appro- 280 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 18 [101] priated last year for the things you have already ordered and which are about to be delivered." Did they say, "Cut down on jet airplane production, or cut down on tank production, or reduce the number of men in the service, or provide them with less ammunition?" No, no, no — they didn't face up to any of these questions. They didn't take any re- sponsibility for saying where and how we should weaken our national defense. Oh, no, they didn't do that. They just took a knife and cut it — and they will go out and brag about it. They just said, "Cut it and don't bother us with details." I wish I had the whole outfit right here before me now. "Later on, after election maybe, we may vote some more money." And that is just exacdy what they are going to have to do. If I have to call a special turnip day session every day from now until the first of January, we are going to get this thing done, and it is going to be done right. But our national defense can't wait on petty politics. If this cut stays in the bill as it is finally passed by the Congress, it will upset the planning and scheduling of our entire de- fense program. We may have to start can- celling contracts. Just as we reach the point where we can produce the latest and most modern weapons in many lines — we may have to cut that production off. Now, if anybody thinks that's economy, he ought to have his head examined. This is not economy. It is the worst kind of waste. It is terribly dangerous. And all you veterans — you men who know what modern war means — ought to be very much concerned about it. And I believe you are. The same kind of dangerous and destruc- tive attacks are being made against the mutual security program. There are people who say that we should slash the funds for military aid and economic support to our friends and allies overseas. There are people who are saying that it is a waste of money to try to relieve poverty, hunger, and despair in underdeveloped countries. I am sure you veterans know the answers to such arguments as these. You know that without strong allies we cannot prevent war. And to prevent a third world war has been the policy of this Government ever since I have been President. You know something else. You know that if war comes, we need to have troops and manpower on our side. If there is a struggle between the free world and the slave world, you do not want the United States to bear the whole burden of resisting the attack. You would not want our young men to have to do all the fight- ing for the free world. And yet, that is exactly what might hap- pen if our mutual security program should fail. We can't expect other nations to fight on the side of freedom unless they have the economic and military strength to do it. Giving aid to foreign nations strengthens ourselves. In case of war, it will save Amer- ican lives. To cut our mutual security program is just as dangerous as it is to cut our own na- tional defense appropriation. I should think that these things would be perfectly clear to everyone — everyone with a grain of commonsense — but it is very hard to get some people to take action against a future danger until disaster strikes. I spent all day Wednesday looking over a terrible disaster out on the upper Missouri River, that could have been prevented if we could only have gotten the people to appre- ciate that it might come. That is the way it was in World War II also. In that war, we lost our friends on the Continent of Europe. We lost the Philip- pines. We lost a good part of our Navy, and thousands of American lives. And we had to fight a long and bloody war to save ourselves. We should not have to have that kind of disaster if we make up our minds — and spend the money and make the effort — to 281 [ioi] April 18 Public Papers of the Presidents do the things which are necessary to pre- vent it. And that is what I am pleading for — that is all in the world I am pleading for. There is no reason to be complacent about the international situation today. This Na- tion is still in deadly peril. We have an army confronting the enemy in the field. We have troops and bases at vital points overseas. The word that comes out of the Kremlin promises peace one day and threatens violence the next. If we have learned anything, we have learned that we cannot rely on what the Kremlin says, but only on what it does. Until the Kremlin shows by deeds that it is willing to abandon its aggressive designs, we must prepare to prevent disaster. This may be an election year here, but the Kremlin won't take a vacation simply because of the political situation. If we weaken, if we fall back, the Kremlin will see a chance to move in. There is only one real language they un- derstand, and that is this. [Holding up a fist] It has to be strong enough so that they will understand what we mean. If we slash our appropriations for na- tional security, we can undo all the work we have done up to this time to prevent another world war. It is foolish to say that we can't afford to protect ourselves. The truth is that we can- not afford to spare any effort to prevent an- other world war. Nobody can calculate the cost of the next world war — if it comes. Anything we spend to prevent it is trifling compared to what such a disaster would cost us and the rest of the world. This great country of ours — stronger and more productive than ever — does not face a danger of internal collapse. To reduce our defenses because of the exaggerated fears about the health of our economy, is just sim- ply sheer folly. The real danger we face is external aggression. The real danger is an all-out attack on the peace of the world by a fanatical and powerful tyranny. And we want to prevent that. We can prevent it. You who have fought in one great world war know that no effort we can make to pre- vent another is too much. It is up to you to bring this message home to the American people. It is up to you to help build up our defenses. It is up to you to keep the alli- ance of free nations strong, so that we may succeed in having world peace in your time. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. at the new headquarters of the American Veterans of World War II in Washington. In his opening words he referred to John L. Smith, national commander of AMVETS, and Robert A. Lovett, Secretary of De- fense. The address was broadcast nationally. 102 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. April 19, 1952 My dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to urge that your committee act favorably at an early date on legislation approving the 1941 Agreement between the United States and Canada, and authorizing the United States to join with Canada in con- structing the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. As I informed the Congress in January, the question before the Congress now is not whether the seaway should be built, but whether the United States should share in its construction, operation, and control. The Canadian Government is ready and willing to build a seaway from Montreal to Lake Erie on the Canadian side of the boundary, if the Congress does not authorize the United States Government to participate in building the joint Canadian-U.S. seaway agreed to in 1941. It would be extremely unwise and unrealistic for the Congress vol- untarily to abandon the opportunity for the 282 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 21 [103] United States to jointly control a waterway so vital to our security, our commerce and industry, and our relations with our Cana- dian neighbors. And yet, if the Congress does not act soon on the legislation before it, that will be the result, for we cannot ask the Canadians to delay much longer. In addition to the seaway, the St. Lawrence project will yield very large benefits in hy- droelectric power. The same dams that create a navigation pool in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River, will yield 12.6 billion kilowatt hours of elec- tric energy per year — half to each country — energy that is badly needed in both countries. In order to build these works, if the Con- gress does not enact the legislation now be- fore it (or other appropriate legislation), it will be necessary for the United States and Canada jointly to apply to the International Joint Commission — a body set up under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with au- thority to approve such projects. In accord- ance with an exchange of notes early this year, copies of which were transmitted to the Congress in January, preparatory work has been proceeding on such a joint application. On Monday of this week, Mr. Lester B. Pearson, the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, together with other Cana- dian and United States officials, met with me here in Washington. Mr. Pearson expressed the desire of the Canadian Government to proceed rapidly with the construction of the project — both the seaway and power phases. The Canadians agree with us that the quick- est and most desirable way to get started on the project is for the Congress to approve the joint development plan now before it. In order to lose no time if the Congress does not act, however, we agreed at Mon- day's meeting that the application to the In- ternational Joint Commission will be com- pleted and filed at an early date. Thus the arrangements are nearly completed for pro- ceeding with the St. Lawrence project by an alternative means if the Congress fails to act soon on the 1941 Agreement. I hope that these alternative arrangements will not have to be followed through, because it is so obviously to the advantage of all our people — including the railroad and port in- terests that have been opposed to the project in the past — for the United States to partici- pate fully in the construction and control of the project. That can only be done if the Congress acts. I cannot believe the Con- gress will let the opportunity pass to safe- guard and advance the vital interests of our people in the St. Lawrence River. We need the seaway and the power. We need them as soon as the necessary works can be built. The best, the simplest, and the quickest way to get them is through legislation by the Congress. Full hearings have been completed before the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House. I strongly recommend that your committee and the Congress promptiy complete action on this vital matter. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and the Honorable Charles A. Buckley, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Works. See also Items 23, 189. 103 Letter to the President of the Senate Concerning Government Operation of the Nation's Steel Mills. April 21, 1952 My dear Mr, President: The Senate has before it certain proposed amendments to the Third Supplemental Ap- propriation Bill for the current fiscal year which would restrict the use of appropriated funds for the operation of steel mills under the Executive Order of April 8, 1952. The implications of this amendment are of such 283 [103] April 21 Public Papers of the Presidents serious consequence, and much of the de- bate concerning it has been of such an ex- treme and misleading character, that I feel I should communicate with the Senate on this subject. On April 9, 1952, I sent a message to the Congress. In that message, I stated that I had ordered temporary operation of the steel mills by the Government with the utmost re- luctance; that the idea of Government opera- tion of the steel mills was thoroughly dis- tasteful to me; and that I wanted to see it ended as soon as possible. I also indicated that, if the Congress wished to take action, I would be glad to cooperate in developing any legislative pro- posals the Congress might wish to consider. That is still my position. I have no wish to prevent action by the Congress. I do ask that the Congress, if it takes action, do so in a manner that measures up to its responsibili- ties in the light of the critical situation which confronts this country and the whole free world. I do not believe the Congress can meet its responsibilities simply by following a course of negation. The Congress cannot perform its Constitutional functions simply by para- lyzing the operations of the Government in an emergency. The Congress can, if it wishes, reject the course of action I have fol- lowed in this matter. As I indicated in my message of April 9, I ordered Government operation of the mills only because the avail- able alternatives seemed to me to be even worse. The Congress may have a different judgment. If it does, however, the Congress should do more than simply tell me what I should not do. It should pass affirmative legislation to provide a constructive course of action looking toward a solution of this matter which will be in the public interest. I have regarded it as imperative, for the sake of our national security, to keep the steel mills in operation. I should not, I think, be forced to a public disclosure of information that would be of value to the enemy. How- ever, I will say this: A shutdown in steel pro- duction for any substantial length of time 284 whatever would immediately reduce the ability of our troops in Korea to defend themselves against attack. If the commu- nists stage another offensive in Korea this spring, the success or failure of that offensive may well depend on whether or not we have kept our steel mills in operation. This is a consideration over and above the drastic effect a steel shutdown would have on our total defense effort. I hope that any legislation passed by the Congress on this subject will provide a meth- od by which the steel mills can be kept in continuous operation. Some Members of Congress may think the national emergency provisions of the Taft- Hartley Act should have been invoked in this dispute. The fact is that, before April 8, we had already had the benefit of a better emer- gency procedure than that available under the Taft-Hartley Act. The emergency provisions of the Taft- Hartiey Act provide for a fact-finding board, and for an eighty-day delay in any work stoppage. The Act provides no means for preventing a shutdown while the fact-find- ing board is making its inquiry, and it for- bids the board to make any recommenda- tions. In the present case, we have had a board which made a thorough study and report on the facts — and recommended a setdement. We have also had a delay — voluntarily — of 100 days in the threatened work stoppage. It may be that some people will insist that we should have had a compulsory delay of 80 days instead of a voluntary delay of 100 days, but I see no advantage in it. Some Members of Congress may feel that, in spite of all the steps already taken, the Taft-Hardey Act should yet be invoked. It appears to me that another fact-finding board and more delays would be futile. There is nothing in the situation to suggest that fur- ther fact finding and further delay would bring about a settlement. And it is by no means certain that the Taft-Hartley proce- dures would actually prevent a shutdown. Furthermore, a Taft-Hartley injunction in Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 22 [104] this situation would be most unfair, since its effect would simply be to force the workers to continue at work for another 80 days at their old wages — despite the fact that they have already remained at work for more than 100 days since their old contract ex- pired, and despite the fact that the Govern- ment's Wage Stabilization Board has already recommended a wage increase. To freeze the status quo by injunction would, of course, be welcomed by the companies, but it would be deeply and properly resented by the workers. These are some of the facts that need to be kept in mind in considering this situation. No real solution can be found that ignores them. I hope the Congress will give deep and serious consideration to the potential con- sequences of any action it chooses to take. If the Congress decides to pass legislation indicating its belief as to what ought not to be done in the steel case, I think it is incum- bent upon the Congress to indicate by legis- lation at the same time its views as to what should be done. And I hope that any such legislation will be worked out carefully and constructively to help bring about a fair settlement of this problem in the public interest. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Alben W. Barkley, The President of the Senate] note: See also Items 82, 83, no. 104 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. April 22, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting to the Congress for ap- proval the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico, adopted by the people of Puerto Rico on March 3, 1952. The Constitution has been submitted to me pursuant to the Act of July 3, 1950, 64 Stat. 319 (48 U.S.C., Supp. IV, 73ib-73ie). This Act authorizes me, upon adoption of a constitution by the people of Puerto Rico, to transmit the constitution to the Congress if I find that it conforms with the applicable provisions of the Act and of the Constitution of the United States. I do find and declare that the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico conforms with the applicable provisions of the Act of July 3, 1950 and of our own Constitution. Fully recognizing the principle of govern- ment by consent, the Act of July 3, 1950 authorized the people of Puerto Rico to or- ganize a republican form of government pursuant to a constitution of their own choos- ing. The Act was adopted by the Congress of the United States "in the nature of a compact." By its own terms, the Act could 55-672— 6$— 22 become effective only when accepted by the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum. On June 4, 1951, the people of Puerto Rico voted by a large majority to accept the Act of July 3, 1950, thereby reaffirming their union with the United States on the terms proposed by the Congress. Following the referendum, the voters of Puerto Rico elected delegates to a Constitutional Convention. The Convention convened in San Juan on September 17, 1951, and concluded its de- liberations on February 6, 1952. The Constitution approved by the Con- stitutional Convention was submitted to the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum on March 3, 1952. It was adopted by an over- whelming majority. In the course of its studies and delibera- tions, the Constitutional Convention made a careful analysis of the constitutions of each of the States of the Union, as well as that of the Federal Government. As a result, the Con- stitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico contains many provisions which are common to constitutions which have been adopted by the States, as well as other pro- 285 [104] April 22 Public Papers of the Presidents visions which are designed primarily to meet local problems. The Constitution establishes the govern- ment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico with three coordinate branches of govern- ment, legislative, executive and judicial. The city of San Juan is designated as the seat of government. The legislative power of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico is vested in the Legis- lative Assembly, consisting of a Senate com- posed of 27 members and a House of Rep- resentatives composed of 51 members. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are to be elected by direct vote at each general election for a term of four years. Both United States and Puerto Rican citizenship are requisites for election to legislative office. Under the Constitution, the executive power of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is vested in a Governor, to be elected by direct vote in each general election for a term of four years. To be eligible for election as Governor, a person must be at least 35 years of age, and must have been, during the 5 years preceding the date of election, a citi- zen of the United States and a citizen and bona fide resident of Puerto Rico. The Gov- ernor is vested with the powers usually lodged in a chief executive under our form of Government, including the right to veto bills enacted by the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly may override the Governor's veto by a vote of two-thirds of the total number of members of which each house is composed. The judicial power of Puerto Rico is vested in a Supreme Court, and in such other courts as may be established by law. The Supreme Court is designated as the court of last re- sort in Puerto Rico and is to be composed of a Chief Justice and four Associate Justices. The Justices of the Supreme Court are to be appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate of Puerto Rico, and are to hold office during good behavior. Justices now serving on the Supreme Court, who have been appointed by the President 286 of the United States, are to continue to hold office during good behavior. The Constitutional Convention gave care- ful consideration to the objective of ensur- ing an independent judiciary. It limited the number of Justices of the Supreme Court to five members and expressly provided that the number cannot be increased except by di- rect request of the Supreme Court itself. Independence of the judiciary is further ad- vanced by the provision of the Constitution placing responsibility for administration of the entire judicial system in the Chief Jus- tice of the Supreme Court, who is appointed for life and removable by impeachment only. The new Constitution contains a bill of rights which corresponds with the highest ideals of human dignity, equality and free- dom. The bill of rights includes provisions which are similar to our own basic Consti- tutional guaranties. In addition, it contains express provisions regarding public educa- tion, conditions of labor, and the protection of private property. The bill of rights also recognizes the existence of certain human rights, but acknowledges that their full en- joyment depends upon an agricultural and industrial development not yet attained by the Puerto Rican community. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by a concurrent resolution ap- proved by not less than two-thirds of the total membership of each house of the Legis- lative Assembly. The amendments must be adopted by a majority of the qualified elec- tors either in a general election or in a special referendum. The Act of July 3, 1950, was the last of a series of enactments through which the United States has provided ever-increasing self-government in Puerto Rico. The Treaty of Paris, which ceded Puerto Rico to the United States, was ratified and proclaimed fifty-three years ago. After a brief period of military government, the Congress in 1900 adopted the first organic act of Puerto Rico, known as the Foraker Act, which established a civil government for the Island. By making provision for a pop- Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 22 [104] ularly-elected lower house of the legislative assembly, called the House of Delegates, the Foraker Act extended some measure of local self-government to Puerto Rico. Pre- ponderant control of the local government of Puerto Rico was retained by the United States, however, by virtue of the President's authority under the Act to appoint the Gov- ernor, the heads of the Executive Depart- ments, the Justices of the Supreme Court, and the eleven members of the Executive Council of Puerto Rico. The present Organic Act of Puerto Rico, enacted on March 2, 19 17, provided a sub- stantial advance in local self-government for Puerto Rico. By creating the Legislature of Puerto Rico, composed of a popularly-elect- ed Senate and House of Representatives, it gave the people direct control over the legis- lative branch of the government. Concur- rently, the Executive Council created by the Foraker Act was divested of its legislative functions. An opportunity for greater par- ticipation in the formulation of executive policies was provided the people of Puerto Rico by authorizing the Governor, with the advice and consent of the insular Senate, to appoint the heads of the executive depart- ments, except the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education. Authority to appoint the Governor, the Attorney Gen- eral, the Commissioner of Education, the Auditor, and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico was reserved to the President of the United States. The Act granted full United States citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico and gave them a bill of rights. It also authorized them to elect a representative to the Congress, accredited to the House of Representatives. In 1946, I appointed the first native of Puerto Rico as Governor, Jesus T. Pinero. By the Act of August 5, 1947, the people of Puerto Rico were authorized to elect their own Governor. This Act also provided that the heads of all executive departments of Puerto Rico were to be appointed by the elected Governor of Puerto Rico, including the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Education. As a result of the Act, there- fore, the people of Puerto Rico assumed direct responsibility and control over the executive branch of the local government. The President of the United States still re- tained authority to appoint the Auditor and the Justices of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, but even this authority will be re- linquished upon approval of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Through the Act of July 3, 1950, providing for the establishment of a constitutional gov- ernment in Puerto Rico, the United States gives evidence once more of its adherence to the principle of self-determination and its devotion to the ideals of freedom and democ- racy. The people of Puerto Rico have ac- cepted the law as enacted by the Congress. They have complied with its requirements and have submitted their Constitution for the approval of the Congress. With its ap- proval, full authority and responsibility for local self-government will be vested in the people of Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will be a government which is truly by the consent of the governed. No government can be invested with a higher dignity and greater worth than one based upon the principle of consent. The people of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico are entering into a new relationship that will serve as an inspiration to all who love freedom and hate tyranny. We are giving new substance to man's hope for a world with liberty and equality under law. Those who truly love freedom know that the right relationship between a govern- ment and its people is one based on mutual consent and esteem. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is a proud document that em- bodies the best of our democratic heritage. I recommend its early approval by the Con- gress. Harry S. Truman note: For the President's statement upon signing the bill approving the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico, see Item 198. 287 [105] April 23 Public Papers of the Presidents 105 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Continuation of Aid to the Netherlands. April 23, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: I have been advised that a small quantity of petroleum exploration equipment was shipped from the Netherlands to Poland af- ter the effective date of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 195 1 (the Battle Act) . This oil drilling equipment is an item listed by the Administrator, pursuant to Title I of the Battle Act, as one embargoed in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Any shipment of any such items listed auto- matically results in all military, economic and financial assistance to the Netherlands being cut off, unless I determine, in accord- ance with the powers granted to me by Sec- tion 103(b) of the Act, that "cessation of aid would clearly be detrimental to the secu- rity of the United States." The Administra- tor of the Act has advised me that aid to the Netherlands should be continued. He made this recommendation after consulta- tion with representatives of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agri- culture, Commerce; the Office of Defense Mobilization, the Mutual Security Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission and the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency. I am informed that the facts are as fol- lows: The shipment, which took place recently, involved small quantities of oil drilling equipment. Technical experts in this coun- try believe that this amount of this particu- lar type of equipment would not add signif- icantly to the capacity of the Soviet bloc to explore for, or to produce petroleum. The shipment is the final one against bind- ing obligations incurred in August 1949. The original contract was entered into in good faith by the Netherlands shipper and the Polish government enterprise two years before the passage of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act and prior to any in- ternational understanding that the equip- ment in question is of primary strategic importance. At the time the original trans- action was negotiated, the Dutch shipper had obtained the consent of his government to complete the contract and subsequently had obtained a Dutch export license. By the time the embargo list was established, pursuant to Title I of the Battle Act, and became opera- tive on January 24, 1952, the Dutch equip- ment had been practically paid for by the Polish enterprise. Before the final shipment took place, officers of the U.S. Government held discussions with the Government of the Netherlands in an effort to find a means of avoiding this shipment. The Netherlands Government considered that this equipment would not significantly contribute to the mili- tary potential of the Soviet bloc (a conclu- sion in which our U.S. technical experts agree). It also took into account the fact that the shipment had been virtually paid for and represented the final transaction under a binding contract made in good faith more than two years previously. The Netherlands Government, therefore, concluded that it would not block the shipment. Cessation of aid to the Netherlands would materially weaken the whole system of de- fenses now being built up under the North Atlantic Treaty. Consequently, cessation of aid to the Netherlands would be "detrimen- tal to the security of the United States." The Netherlands is making a substantial contribution to the mutual security of the free world. The Netherlands has been a participant in the North Atlantic Treaty defense program since its inception and, notwithstanding a most difficult domestic economic situation, has made courageous political and military decisions and has taken positive steps in order to make its partici- pation in the program effective. The Netherlands Government has demonstrated a cooperative spirit, and has displayed a gen- 288 Harry S. Truman, J952 April 24 [106] uine sense of concern and responsibility to- ward the mutual defense effort. The Netherlands Government has com- mitted itself to make substantial contribu- tions— industrial, financial and military — to the North Atlantic Treaty defense program. In this connection, it should be noted that the Netherlands Government is carrying out on its own initiative a strict program of internal financial controls and is reducing the level of civilian consumption in order to provide added resources for defense. From the standpoint of military strategy, the Netherlands occupies an important posi- tion. The Dutch have shown a willingness to cooperate in coordinated planning so as to make possible the maximum use to NATO forces of Holland's strategic location. In addition, the Netherlands Government has specifically committed itself to provide a substantial number of troops, naval vessels and air units and to be responsible for their maintenance and training. However, the Netherlands' contribution to the security of the free world — and, hence, to the security of the United States — cannot, in the absence of assistance, be carried out as planned. The Netherlands Government cooperates with the United States and other countries of the free world to prevent or limit drasti- cally export to the Soviet bloc of items that are considered to be strategic. The Nether- lands controls are well designed to effectuate understandings arrived at and are efficiently operated. Therefore, in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 103(b) of the Mutual De- fense Assistance Control Act, I have directed that assistance by the United States to the Netherlands be continued. In reaching this determination, I have acted upon the advice of the Administrator of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act, Mr. W. Averell Harriman, and have taken into account "the contribution of such country to the mutual security of the free world, the importance of such assistance to the security of the United States, the strategic importance of imports received from countries of the Soviet bloc, and the adequacy of such country's controls over the export to the Soviet bloc of items of strategic importance." Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Kenneth McKellar, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Hon- orable Richard B. Russell, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Honorable Clarence Cannon, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropria- tions, the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, and the Hon- orable James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951 was approved October 26, 1951 (65 Stat. 644). 106 Message to the Congress Transmitting the First Annual Report of the Federal Civil Defense Administration. April 24, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith for the atten- tion of the Congress the First Annual Report of the Federal Civil Defense Administra- tion. This is a comprehensive report on a most important subject. I hope it will be read and studied by every member of the Con- gress. Civil defense in this country is now a going concern — this report makes that very clear. A great deal has been accomplished by the Federal Government, the States, and our local communities to get the program un- derway. Over two million patriotic citizens have volunteered for civil defense work and a considerable number of them have already received specialized training in their jobs. All that is good. But it is not nearly enough. This report shows the growing strength of our civil defense program. But it 289 [106] April 24 Public Papers of the Presidents also shows the shortcomings — and these shortcomings are a matter of grave national concern. We have the skeleton of a good civil defense organization. Now we need to add millions more volunteers. We need vasdy increased stockpiles of medical and other supplies. We need shelters. We need extensive training of our people in areas vul- nerable to attack. We need all these things and need them fast before we can begin to feel reasonably secure about the defense of the United States — before we can say we have the kind of civil defense which helps to make aggression an unprofitable business, and thus supports our program for peace. This calls for a far greater sense of urgency and for a better record of action by every citizen and at every level of Government — Federal, State and local— than has been given to civil defense up to this time. The Congress itself has a real responsi- bility here. In January 1951, the Congress passed the basic legislation under which our civil defense program has been set up. It is good legislation. It provides a sound frame- work for doing the job. But ever since this law was enacted, the program has been starved for lack of adequate appropriations. Naturally it costs more to get a program like this underway, building shelters, setting up the stockpiles, than it will cost to keep the operation going once this initial work is done. Ultimately, the annual cost of civil defense to the Federal Government should be only a fraction of what is needed now — provided we do not delay in carrying through with the initial buildup. Last year I requested $535 million to build up our civil defense program in the current fiscal year. Instead the Congress provided only $75 million. This year $600 million has been requested as the Federal Govern- ment's share in speeding our civil defense work for the coming fiscal year. I ear- nestiy hope the Congress will provide the full amount this time. It is essential if we are to get the job done right. I want to be as clear about this as I can. We simply cannot afford a penny-wise- pound-foolish attitude about the cost of ade- quate civil defense. Everyone in this coun- try— all of us — must face the fact that civil defense is, and will continue to be, just as vital to American security as our armed forces, our defense production and our aid to allies and friends abroad. Civil defense is another indispensable part of our total security program. I really believe that anyone who reflects upon this matter will understand why that is so. Every weakness in civil defense increases an aggressor's temptation to attack us. Every weakness in our civil defense adds to the strength of a potential enemy's stockpile of atomic bombs. I hope that every member of the Congress will take time to think through the serious implications of this First Annual Report of the Federal Civil Defense Administration. I hope that every member will do his part to speed our progress on this vital program. Harry S. Truman note: The First Annual Report of the Federal Civil Defense Administration is printed in House Docu- ment 445 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). 107 The President's News Conference of April 24, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have a word or two for you before we start the questions. [ 1.] There has been a lot of hooey about the seizure of the press and the radio. As I told you last week, the President of the United States has very great inherent powers to meet great national emergencies.1 Until those emergencies arise a President cannot say specifically what he would do or would 1 See Item 98 [14]. 29O Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 24 [107] not do. I can say this, that the thought of seizing press and radio has never occurred to me. I have difficulty imagining the Gov- ernment taking over and running those industries. [2.] Now, I want to talk to you a litde bit about steel. I told my advisory com- mittee the other day that the reason for the steel seizure2 was the fact that we are in one of the greatest emergencies the country has ever been in, that in 1945 I had to send an ultimatum to the head of the Soviet Union to get out of Persia. They got out, because we were in a position then to meet a situa- tion of that kind. A little later on, the Government of Yugo- slavia decided to take Trieste. I sent for General Eisenhower, and General Marshall,3 and the Navy, and ordered the Mediter- ranean Fleet into the Adriatic Sea, and told General Eisenhower to send three divisions to northern Italy. There was no march on Trieste. Then there was an attempt to take over Greece and Turkey. Well, you know the result of that. Greece and Turkey are free countries. Then came the Berlin airlift, and Berlin is still a free city. Then came Korea, and that march into Korea was against a United Nations Re- public. It was against the whole world. I was in Missouri at that time, and when I came back on an emergency flight, deci- sions were made to send the 7th Fleet off the coast of western Korea and to move di- visions into Korea to meet the situation — which we did. And we have met it. And South Korea is still a free country. And I hope some day that Korea will be the re- public that the United Nations set up. Now we had then to go into the defense of the free countries, and we set up the NATO treaties, which were negotiated by a See also Items 82, 83, 103, no. 8 General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commander, Allied Forces Europe, and Gen. George C. Marshall, former Chief of Staff of the Army. Dean Acheson,4 and carried through to success. We are now in the midst of the same emergency. We are trying to arm the NATO countries so they can stand up. We are trying to prevent the Korean army that we have there, along with our allies, from being shot in the back. And that can only be done by an all-out steel production. And I felt that we were in the midst of as great an emergency as we have ever faced. I tried to meet it. I have been abused roundly for it. I am not the first President that has been abused under the same circumstances, so I know how to take it. We want peace in the world. That is all we have been working for since I became the President of the United States. We are going to continue to work for that end as long as I am President of the United States, up to the 20th of January next year. And I hope we will succeed in keeping the peace, which we have done up to date. Peace in the world means the welfare of every nation in the world. And if we can get the so-called point 4 program working, we will never be able to catch up with our productive machinery with what the world demands and needs. Now I didn't come over here to make you a speech, I came over here to answer questions. But there has been so much hooey put out about this steel propo- sition, and about other things, that I felt like I should make a statement to you as to what we really are working for. There is only one thing, and that is pros- perity at home, and peace in the world. At the present time we have both — almost. And if we can continue, we will have both in its entirety. Now I will answer questions. Q. Mr. President, may we quote that word "hooey" ? the president. Well — [laughter] * Secretary of State. 29I [107] April 24 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Mr. President, may I interrupt — may we quote the whole thing? Q. Yes, sir, that's what Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the Presi- dent: Let's see about putting the whole thing on the record. the president. My Press Secretary would like to edit it before he puts it on the record, and I have no objection to its quotation if it works out all right. Q. Mr. President, how about the word "hooey," pending that? the president. Well, let's "pend" it. Q. Sir? the president. Keep on "pending" it. Q. Mr. President, last Saturday night Alexander Jones made his attack on you.5 I would like to have a copy of the transcript of what you said about the press and steel to give my bosses. the president. Well, I will leave that to Mr. Short. I think you can get it. [3.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder in this same line if you would have a similar de- scriptive word about the efforts to impeach you in the House? the president. Oh, well, that's a political proposition. They have a right to do that, if they want to. I have a pretty good de- fense. [Laughter] [4.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Richards 6 has called for Averell Harriman 7 to quit being either Mutual Security Direc- tor or a candidate for President. Do you agree with him? the president. I wonder if the Chairman 5 Alexander F. Jones, editor of the Syracuse Herald- Journal and outgoing president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, spoke at the annual dinner of the society's convention in Washington. In his speech Mr. Jones disputed President Truman's assertion in the news conference of April 17 (Item 98 [14]) that the President has the power to take control of newspapers and radio stations. 6 Representative James P. Richards of South Caro- lina, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Com- mittee. 7W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. of the Foreign Relations Committee should either quit being a Democrat or quit being Chairman of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee? [Laughter] [5.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to get you down to a little lower level the president. Sure — any place you want to go. Q. 1 wonder if you are backing Frank McHale for reelection the president. I beg your pardon? Q. I want to know if you are backing Frank McHale for reelection for Democratic national committeeman in Indiana? the president. I have no candidates at the present time. Get that — at the present time. Q. The election is next month. Will you decide before then? the president. I have no candidates at the present time. Mr. Short: He said as Democratic national committeeman. the president. I have no candidates at the present time. [6.] Mr. President, can you tell us why you decided to change your mind about pre- senting a plan for putting the civil functions of the Army Engineers in the Interior De- partment? the president. I came to the conclusion, after a lot of study — and I have been study- ing it for longer than anybody that I know of — that it was not the right thing to do. Q. Was there considerable pressure? the president. No pressure at all ever affects me, Pete.8 You ought to know that by this time. Q. I wasn't asking whether it affected you, I was asking you whether there was pressure. the president. No. I didn't know any- thing about it, if there was. I have made an unbiased study of the whole thing. I have been making it for the last 5 years or 10 years, and I decided that there wasn't any 8 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 292 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 24 [107] use doing what the Hoover report9 called for. I thought it was wrong. Q. I can't understand the shift from the president. There was no shift. There was no shift on my part. I had never made a decision on it. Q. I thought you said at your last press conference THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. that there would be a plan to take up? the president. That's right. I changed my mind and decided no plan would go up, because I didn't think it was necessary to have a plan when you leave things like they are. Q. I was trying to get why you changed your mind? the president. I didn't change my mind. I have never been for it. Q. Never been for it? THE PRESIDENT. No. [7.] Q. Mr. President, you say that dur- ing an emergency you have very great in- herent powers to act. Are there any limitations at all over a President's actions during an emergency? the president. Well, you had better read your history and find out. There are a lot of Presidents who have had to make deci- sions in emergencies, and if you will read history you will find out why they had to make them. But it did not hurt the Re- public. In fact, it made the Republic better. [8.] Q. Mr. President, there never was any statement by you that — even by im- plication— that you intended to seize any newspapers or radio stations, was there, sir? the president. Not at all, not at all. Q. Mr. President, just to really nail that one down — [laugh ter ] the president. All right, nail it. 9 President Hoover was Chairman of the Commis- sion on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. His Commission's report on the Interior Department, which included proposed agency transfers to and from the Department, is printed in House Document 122 (81st Cong., 1st sess.). See also Item 98 [34]. Q. Actually, a number of people, par- ticularly among the editors at your press conference last week, got the idea that — when you were asked that question about whether it would be proper to seize the press and radio that you were implying that you had those powers. Now, were you an- swering to the point of steel or to press and radio? the president. I was answering to the point of the welfare of the country, and that's what's at stake. [9.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask you if that original statement you read us has been mimeographed? the president. I don't think it has. Q. I just wondered is that for direct quote? the president. We'll see about it all. We will let Joe take care of it. I was going to let you read it, Tony.10 [Laughter] [10.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would discuss some of the acts of the pre- vious Presidents you are thinking about? the president. Well, to start with, there was a gentleman by the name of Jefferson, who paid $15 million for the greatest addi- tion to this country that has ever been made. They tried to impeach him for that, if I remember correctly. There was a gentleman by the name of Tyler, who agreed to the annexation of Texas. He was the first Vice President, by the way, who became President, and he wouldn't let them call him "acting Presi- dent." He became President in fact. Then there was a gentleman by the name of Polk, who made an annexation to the country that was second only to Jefferson's. And there was a Secretary of State who made a purchase up in the northwest corner of the continent, called Alaska. It was called "Seward's icebox." But it has, I would imagine, a thousand times the assets of what Seward agreed to pay for it as Sec- retary of State. I think at that time he was working for Andrew Johnson when they 10 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 293 [107] April 24 Public Papers of the Presidents bought Alaska. And Johnson approved what he did. Johnson was impeached, but not for that reason. Mr. Lincoln exercised the powers of the President to meet the emergencies with which he was faced. So did President Roosevelt. I don't want to stand here as an authority on the history of the Presidency, but then I like to tell you boys some of the things that are most interesting in the Presidency of the United States. Now, I am not talking about the indi- vidual. I am talking about the Office. [11.] Q. Mr. President, you referred earlier to the fact that you had sent an ultimatum to the Soviet Union to get out of Persia in 1945. the president. That's correct. Q. Is that something you are telling us for the first time, or are you summarizing what happened in 1945? the president. That really took place. That really took place in 1945. [12.] Q. Mrs. May Craig, Portland (Maine) Press Herald. Mr. President, if I might return to the steel, please. I listen up at the Capitol all the time, and the feeling up there is that one of the greatest protec- tions for our liberty is that we live by written law, and they dread a departure into un- written or inherent powers, fearing that precedent. Do you recognize the danger of that too? the president.- Well, of course I do, May. But then when you meet an emergency in an emergency, you have to meet it. Mrs. Craig: Yes, sir. Then some of them have said that they thought you could perhaps have met this by asking them for laws, as you did in relation once to labor — the railroad labor the president. I have asked them twice. Mrs. Craig: Yes, sir. the president. I have asked them twice to give me advice on how to meet this situ- ation, and all the advice I get is that I have done wrong, and that I ought to be im- peached. [Laughter] Mrs. Craig: Yes, sir. Then they ask — and I mean — I hear them in the corridors, that is why I am bringing this to you — they say that you could have gained 80 days if you had used the Taft-Hardey law in which something might have been done. the president. I requested the labor unions not to strike, back in November; and for 99 days they tried to negotiate and get an answer. I couldn't ask them for another 80 days, May, without being unfair to them. [13.] Q. Mr. President, would you com- ment on the bill introduced by Senator Morse, that would in effect legitimatize the exercise of emergency powers by the Presi- dent, but they would be subject to more or less ratification by Congress ? the president. Well now, that piece of legislation has not reached me, and I can't comment on legislation until it's on my desk. [14.] Q. Mr. President, on this ulti- matum on Iran, I am sure there is going to be confusion. Is this something that has been published before, or are you the president. No, it hasn't. It's in the record, though. Q. Was it a message from you to Stalin? the president. It was a message from me to Stalin to get out of Persia. Unless he did get out, we would put some more people in there. And he got out. Q. Would there be a copy of that avail- able? the president. No sir, there would not be. Q. You would not release the document? the president. No, I can't release it. Q. Mr. President, could you tell us more of the terms of it? the president. I can't tell you any more than I have told you. Q. I didn't follow it all — you sent a mes- sage to Stalin to get out of Persia, and then something about people? the president. We would take the neces- sary steps, if he did not get out. And we had a fleet at that time in the Persian Gulf, and we had a lot of soldiers over in that neighborhood — which we haven't got now 294 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 24 [107] or anywhere else, unless the Congress goes ahead and gives us a chance to put our de- fense program into effect. Q. May I ask the same question about Tito and General Eisenhower in the same relation. Is that new, or is that the president. No, that happened back in 1945. Q. Has that been made a matter of record? the president. No, that has not been made public. Q. Mr. President, did Stalin reply to you in any written way? the president. He got out of Persia. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, what was the occasion of them moving into Persia? the president. Well, we used the Persian Gulf as the line through which we sent all the supplies that saved Stalingrad and a great many other of the Russian approaches. We sent them thousands of trucks and tons of ammunition through that route. And they had people in there to guard the route. Q. They just held them over from the war? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Mr. President, was that after the Pots- dam conference the president. Oh, no, that was long be- fore Yalta or anything else took place — long before Tehran. Q. We meant the ultimatum, Mr. Presi- dent? the president. Oh no, that was right after I took office. Q. Before the Potsdam conference? the president. Before the Potsdam con- ference, that's right. Q. On the Trieste thing, it seems to me I recall that the president. No, no Mr. Short: Mr. President, I don't think it could have been before Potsdam, sir. the president. Maybe it wasn't. Joe says he doesn't think it was. You can check it. Q. I also remember there was trouble in Trieste when we were coming back from Rio, after your visit there, Mr. President. the president. Well, this was another one. This was shortly after, as Joe says, the Pots- dam conference. Q. Both in 1945? the president. Both in 1945. Q. Both the Trieste and the Iranian thing in 1945? the president. That's right — that's right. [15.] Q. Mr. President, it is very kind of you to make such a statement to show the world that as long as you are the President of the United States until January, you are sure to bring about the peace of the world. Now, the people of the world are looking up to your leadership — great leadership — and believe in you, and trust in you. Now, what will happen after January? the president. Well, I will tell you what will happen. We will elect a Democratic President, and carry on the present policy. [Laughter] [Confers with Mr. Short.] [16.] Whatever the dates are. They are facts that I have stated, except as to the time. Q. I don't think it was 1945. the president. It may have been 1946 — but then it could have been — but Joe will get you the dates.11 You don't need to use dates, I am just tell- ing you the facts as they took place. Q. Was that a personal message to Stalin? the president. It went through the regu- lar channels. Q. Well, Mr. President, the message to Stalin was in 1945, is that "Later in the day, a White House spokesman clarified the President's remarks on Iran and Trieste. The spokesman explained that a formal ultimatum had never been sent to Joseph Stalin but that a note was delivered to Moscow on March 6, 1946, which stated the U.S. position on the retention of Soviet troops in Iran after the deadline agreed upon under the Anglo-Soviet-Iranian treaty of January 29, 1942. The Soviet troops were removed by May 4, 1946. The spokesman gave June 11, 1945, as the date for Marshal Tito's withdrawal of Yugoslav troops around Trieste. 295 [107] April 24 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. I am not sure. Joe says it may have been later. He may be right. Q. Mr. President, an ultimatum is a very specific, definite word in a political sense, and it usually causes a good deal of attention. In that particular action, does it mean there was a time limit on your communique? the president. Yes, we had a certain day in which to get out. Q. A day what? Q. What was that? I'm sorry, sir? the president. I say there was a certain day in which to get out. Q. Do you recall, or could you say how many days there were? the president. No, I can't. You will have to look up the details. Q. Mr. President, these troops — Russian troops were the ones that had to guard that line? the president. They were in Tehran and every other key position in Iran. Q. Mr. President, are you saying that we could be more forceful at that time because we had a bigger force? the president. We had a mobilized army and navy at that time. That is what we are trying to get now. Not for aggression, but to prevent it. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's three hundred and first news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:35 a-m« on Thursday, April 24, 1952. 108 Letter to Senator Maybank on Vacation Leave Privileges of Federal Employees. April 25, 1952 [ Released April 25, 1952. Dated April 24, 1952 ] Dear Senator Mayban\: I am writing to urge your careful atten- tion to a matter of great importance to the proper management of the Government and to the welfare of our many hard working Federal employees. This matter relates to the bill before your Subcommittee on Inde- pendent Offices Appropriations, which would have the effect of prohibiting accumulations of annual leave by reinstating a provision in the statutes which was expressly repealed no longer ago than October 30 of last year. After extensive hearings and careful study of the subject of annual leave, the Congress enacted a new leave program expertly de- signed to meet the needs of the Federal Service. This Act, the Annual and Sick Leave Act of 195 1, provided for a graduated system of leave based upon length of service. Although the statute reduced the total amount of leave earned per year by most Federal employees to thirteen days or twenty days, depending on length of service, it was accepted as a fair and reasonable approach to the leave problem. This acceptance was based partially at least on the fact that as part and parcel of this system, arbitrary restrictions upon the accumulation of leave up to the sixty-day maximum were removed. It strikes me as particularly unfair to Fed- eral employees and to those who were heard in Congress on their behalf, to remove the accumulation privilege and thus deprive these employees of their fair consideration for the cutback in the amount of leave earned. Unfortunately, however, that is the effect of a provision in the Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1953 enacted by the House of Representatives on March 21, 1952. Moreover, the effect of this pro- vision is especially harsh inasmuch as the accumulation of annual leave is the only cushion the Federal employee has at the present time against unemployment. Until some form of severance pay or unemploy- ment compensation similar to that required by Federal law for private employees is pro- vided for Federal workers, the only protec- tion against the hardships of unemployment which they can rely on is whatever amount 296 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 25 [109] of annual leave they are able to save. Furthermore, I am convinced that a care- ful study of the long-range effect of this provision would indicate that it would in- crease cost to the Government because it would complicate emergency recruiting and would result in amounts of overtime at premium rates. Inasmuch as I know of your long-stand- ing concern for a healthy and economical Federal establishment based upon fair stand- ards, I am taking this opportunity to urge upon you the advisability of removing this unfair provision from the bill under con- sideration. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Burnet R. Maybank, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.] note: Senator Maybank was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Independent Offices Appropria- tions of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency. For the President's statement upon signing the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1953, see Item 201. The Annual and Sick Leave Act of 1951 was approved on October 30, 1951 (65 Stat. 679). 109 Letter to Senator McKellar on the Need for Restoring Funds for Flood Control. April 25, 1952 Dear Kenneth: On April 2, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7268, the Army civil functions appropriations bill for the fiscal year 1953. In doing so, the House reduced my budget requests for flood control and river and har- bor development by 29 percent. The effect of this reduction would be to stop construc- tion on a number of projects now underway, to slow down work on many others, and to prevent starting certain new projects which I included in the 1953 Budget. Within ten days after the House action, the false economy of any such move was demonstrated — demonstrated in havoc and destruction by floods on the Missouri River, the upper Mississippi River, and the Red River of the North. The terrible damage that has been done — and is still being done — by flood waters in the Midwest is inescapable evidence that we must move ahead with water control projects as rapidly as we can afford to in these times of budgetary stringency. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that your Committee and the Senate restore the funds cut out by the House and approve the full amount of the budget recommenda- tions for these purposes. I appreciate the desire of the Members of the House to hold budget expenditures for civil public works to a minimum at a time when we have to put so much money into national security programs. I had the same thought in mind when I prepared the Budget. I deferred or eliminated, in this emergency Budget, many projects which would bring clear benefits to the Nation and would be highly desirable in normal times, and I included funds for starting new proj- ects only when they were clearly of such urgency that they could not be deferred. I firmly believe that to cut below the Budget estimates would lose us far more than would be "saved." There is no economy in spending less than we can afford on our efforts to stop these disastrous floods. This is well illustrated by the projects on the upper Missouri. Four dams are under construction there: Garrison in North Da- kota, Oahe and Fort Randall in South Da- kota, and Gavins Point on the South Dakota- Nebraska border. If all four had been fin- ished, they could have caught and held this spring's flood waters and prevented any serious damage along the main stem of the Missouri. And yet the House action would 297 [109] April 25 Public Papers of the Presidents stop work entirely on two of them, and slow down the other two — very possibly delaying for a year the scheduled closure of Garrison Dam, the largest reservoir of them all. Until those dams are finished, the people of the Missouri Basin can have no assurance against a repetition of this spring's disaster. I can see no economy whatever in delaying that time any longer than we have to. The same thing is true of the other proj- ects in the 1953 Budget. Every one of them is thoroughly justified — including projects other than those which will yield primarily flood control benefits, and projects other than those in the present flood area. The Budget contains funds, for example, for starting Ice Harbor Dam in Washington and Hartwell Dam in South Carolina, both of which will yield very badly needed power, and both of which have a close relation to the atomic energy installations nearby. The Budget also contains funds to start Tuttle Creek and Glen Elder Dams in Kansas (the latter being in the Interior Department budget esti- mates), and for flood protection work at Topeka, Kansas, and Cape Girardeau, Mis- souri— those being the most important flood control projects needed in the Kansas- Missouri area where last year's ravaging floods occurred. All these projects are urgently needed, and yet all were entirely cut out by the House. I think the House action was thoroughly unsound. The proper way to stop flood destruction, and to turn our rivers into sources of benefit instead of destruction, is to move forward steadily, year by year, to- ward the orderly and economic completion of projects now underway and from time to time to start a few of the most urgent new projects on a highly selective basis. That is exactly the program incorporated in the Budget. It would be thrown into wasteful confusion by the House action. These problems cannot be handled efficiently on an intermittent, stop-and-go basis. They need steady, orderly progress, such as the Budget provides for. I should like to take note of one additional point. It was claimed in the House that all new work in the Missouri Basin should be held up until the Missouri Basin Survey Commission, which I established in January, makes its report. No one knows better than I that we need more comprehensive and bet- ter balanced planning for future develop- ment in the Missouri Basin — and in most other areas. That is why I set up the Com- mission. But, as I indicated when I estab- lished the Commission, it provides no ex- cuse whatever for failing to proceed with projects which we now know are sound and beneficial and urgently needed. That is the type of project — and the only type — which I included in the 1953 Budget. We must stop these rampaging floods and this terrible damage to farms and farm buildings, to homes and business districts in towns and cities. Last week, I visited the flooded areas along the Mississippi and Mis- souri Rivers. Last year, I visited the flooded areas in Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma. In previous years, I have seen the floods in the Pacific Northwest and the Red River of the North and other areas. They have all been terrible. They have caused terrific economic losses and human suffering. They must be stopped. And we know how to stop them. I wish every Member of Congress could see these flooded areas and walk through the devastation that floods leave behind. I don't think there would be any question then about approving the budget recommen- dations for controlling the waters in our great rivers and using them for good instead of letting them go on a rampage. I believe the Budget for these projects is just as tight as it can properly be made. I believe it would be wasteful, instead of eco- nomical, to appropriate less. I hope your Committee and the Congress will restore the funds for flood control and related work that the House cut out. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman 298 Harry S. Truman, 7952 April 27 [no] [The Honorable Kenneth McKellar, Chairman, Ap- propriations Committee, United States Senate, Wash- ington 25, D.C.] note: On July n, 1952, the President approved the Civil Functions Appropriations Act, 1953 (66 Stat. 579)5 which provided funds for Army civil functions. See also Items 3,32, 97. 1 10 Letter to C. S. Jones in Response to Questions on the Steel Situation. April 27, 1952 Dear Mr. Jones: I have your letter concerning my radio address on the steel situation and I was very interested in the questions you raised. I wish I could take the time to write to the many hundreds of people who have written me about the steel situation. The majority of the letters I have received indicated ap- proval of the action I took. From the letters indicating disapproval, it is quite apparent that many of the writers based their disagree- ment on a misunderstanding of the facts. Unfortunately, in the limited radio time I had, I could not possibly go into detail on all phases of the steel case. But I am going to take the time now to answer the specific questions in your letter. The first question you raised relates to steel company profits. The profits figures which I used in my radio address were prof- its before taxes. There has been a lot of discussion of this, but it should be clear that if you are going to establish fair price ceilings, you have to figure on the basis of income before taxes. If you took income after taxes, you would have to raise price ceilings to compensate for income tax increases. And if we let prices — and wages — go up to compensate for bigger income taxes, we would obviously not be preventing inflation, we would be en- couraging it. This is the reason we have to use profits before taxes in determining whether an in- dustry is entitled to a price increase. It is the same with all other groups in the econ- omy. The wage increases recommended by the Wage Stabilization Board for the steel- workers were based on wages before taxes — not on take-home pay after tax deductions. In adjusting wage rates to the cost of living, which is the practice in many industries, the standard used is the Consumers Price In- dex— which does not take account of the increased income taxes paid by workers. In determining fair price supports for farm products, the law does not take into account the income taxes that farmers pay. Obviously, if we are going to be fair, busi- ness must be governed by the same stabiliza- tion principles applicable to wage earners, salaried persons and farmers. It is true that the steel companies are pay- ing high taxes. So is everybody else. If we allowed the steel companies to get price increases to cover their higher taxes, we would simply be shifting the tax burden to those less able to afford it. As a matter of fact, the steel companies are making so much money that even with today's high taxes their profits after taxes are greater now than the profits they made after taxes in the three years before the Korean outbreak — and those were very profitable years. The Iron and Steel Insti- tute has reported that its members — some 90% of the industry — averaged 494 million dollars in profits after taxes for the three years before Korea. That comes to about $6.59 per ton. And for 195 1, the Institute reports profits after taxes of 668 million dollars — or $7.07 per ton. So you see that whether you take profits before or after taxes, the conclusion is still the same. We will never be able to prevent profiteering in this emergency if we give the steel industry special treatment and im- munity from the price control rules. Second, you ask whether the "closed shop" was involved in this case. The "closed 299 [no] April 27 Public Papers of the Presidents shop" is not an issue in this case, but the "union shop" is. I can understand your confusion on this point. The closed shop and the union shop are actually quite dif- ferent. However, the two are commonly confused, and this confusion has been de- liberately exploited in the propaganda of the steel industry. The closed shop, which requires a person to belong to a union before he can be hired by an employer, is forbidden by federal law. However, the Taft-Hartley Act specifically authorizes the union shop, under which employers and unions make an agreement requiring that workers become union members after they have been hired. There are many variations of such agree- ments. It is not uncommon to excuse old employees from joining the union, or even to allow a person to drop out of the union after the first year if he chooses. The union shop was definitely an issue in this case. The Wage Stabilization Board felt that the issue was important enough to require a recommendation. The dispute obviously could not have been settled if this issue were not settled. It should be noted that the Board did not recommend any par- ticular form of union shop. It recommend- ed that the parties negotiate the form of union shop to be adopted. Incidentally, the union shop is not new to the steel industry. Twenty-seven steel companies already have some kind of union shop arrangements in effect and some of the leading steel companies — including the United States Steel Corporation — which are objecting to signing union shop contracts with the steelworkers, already have union shop contracts with other workers they employ. Third, you asked about the Taft-Hartley Act. A work stoppage would have oc- curred December 31, if the union had not acceded to the Government's request to postpone strike action so that the Wage Stabilization Board could hear the dispute and recommend a fair settlement. By this means strike action was delayed, before April 8, for 99 days — Voluntarily — whereas the Taft-Hartley Act could have delayed it only 80 days — by compulsion. I don't think it makes sense to use force when you can get cooperation by free consent. After the Board made its recommenda- tions, late in March, the parties resumed ne- gotiations and Government negotiators on the scene were hopeful of settlement right up to the evening of April 8. A resort to the Taft-Hartley machinery during the time the parties were meeting, of course, would have stopped negotiations and destroyed any chance of settlement. If I had used the Taft-Hartley Act on April 8, there inevitably would have been a work stoppage — because under the Taft- Hartley Act, there is an elaborate procedure which must be observed before an injunc- tion can be sought. A Board of Inquiry must be appointed, must hold hearings, and must prepare a report to the President. Only then may the President instruct the Attorney General to seek an injunction. All this takes time. On previous occasions, when I have used the Taft-Hartley Act, it has taken on the average from a week to 10 days from the time a Board of Inquiry is appointed until the time the Attorney Gen- eral may get an injunction. The Taft- Hartley Act simply would not have pre- vented a shutdown of essential steel produc- tion in this case. Your fourth question is whether the pub- lic members of the Wage Stabilization Board were appointed on the recommendation of labor. They were not. The public mem- bers of the Board were appointed to their positions because they were experienced and qualified men to represent the public in- terest. Most of them have a firsthand fa- miliarity with labor-management relations. As a matter of fact, their acceptability to both industry and labor is evidenced by the fact that several of them have frequently served as arbitrators of industrial disputes. In such situations, the arbitrator is the choice of both the union and the management, and his compensation is paid for jointly by the parties. 300 Harry S. Truman, 1952 April 27 [no] Those who seek to discredit the Board by charges that the public members are "pro- labor" don't know what they are talking about. You may be interested to know that the National Advisory Board on Mobiliza- tion Policy — composed of outstanding lead- ers from industry, labor, agriculture, and the public — reported to me only this week that they had considered this matter and unanimously found "the attacks on the in- tegrity of the public members of the Wage Stabilization Board to be unfair and unsub- stantiated by fact." Finally, you ask whether the recommenda- tions of the Board exceeded the demands of the union. They were in fact substantially less than what the union wanted. There were over a hundred issues in this dispute. On many of the union demands, the Board declined to take action or recommended that they be withdrawn. On others, the Board recommended that the parties settle for much less than the union asked for. This is only natural. The parties to a labor dispute rarely get all they want or feel they should have. Neither the union nor the steel com- panies could expect to be satisfied with the recommendations which would, all things considered, be fair to both parties. I hope this letter will give you a better understanding of the steel controversy. I know the American people will make the proper judgment if only they get all the facts and see the issues. Your Government is doing all in its power to get the facts to the people. The officials of the Government are laying out the essential facts on wages and on prices before a number of Congres- sional committees. I can only hope that the newspapers of the country will give as much attention to those facts as they do to the paid political ads of the steel companies. I realized that the action I was taking in this case was very drastic, and I did it only as a matter of necessity to meet an extreme emergency. In so doing, I believe that I was acting within the powers of the President under the Constitution — and indeed, that it was the duty of the President under the Constitution to act to preserve the safety of the Nation. The powers of the Presi- dent are derived from the Constitution, and they are limited, of course, by the provisions of the Constitution, particularly those that protect the rights of individuals. The legal problems that arise from these facts are now being examined in the courts, as is proper, but I feel sure that the Constitution does not require me to endanger our national safety by letting all the steel mills shut down in this critical time. I have repeatedly stated that the idea of Government operation of the steel mills is distasteful to me. I have twice sent mes- sages to the Congress asking it to prescribe a course to be followed to achieve a solution of this case, if the Congress disagreed with the action I was taking. The Congress has not done so. I want to end Government operation at the earliest possible moment, and I will do everything I can to end it as soon as that can be done without irreparable harm to the national interest. I am taking the liberty of making my letter to you public in the hope that the in- formation will be helpful to others who are equally anxious to know the real facts in this controversy. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. C. S. Jones, Washington Crossing, Pennsyl- vania] note: Charles S. (Casey) Jones, president of the Academy of Aeronautics at La Guardia Airport in New York City, was a World War I aviator and a pioneer in the aeronautics industry. He maintained a 220-acre cattle farm at Washington Crossing, Pa. Mr. Jones's letter was chosen as representative of the body of mail expressing disapproval of the Presi- dent's radio address on the steel situation (Item 82), and his permission was obtained to make the questions public along with the President's reply. The findings of the National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy on the situation in the steel industry were released by the White House on April 23. See also Items 82, 83, 103. 301 [hi] April 28 Public Papers of the Presidents in Statement by the President on the Termination of the State of War With Japan. April 28, 1952 WITH THE deposit of the United States ratification which brings into force the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the state of war has been terminated and Japan has been restored to a status of sovereign equality in the society of free peoples. This great event is especially gratifying to the Government and people of the United States who have worked in close association with the Gov- ernment and people of Japan for its restora- tion as a prosperous and progressive nation. This common effort has strengthened the essential bonds of friendship between our two peoples. The Treaty of Peace terminates the Allied occupation of Japan and with it the entire regime of control and opens a new era in Japan's history. During the past 6 years, the Japanese people and Government have worked to build a democratic and peace- loving nation with a sincerity and earnest- ness that has won them the respect of the world. The Treaty of Peace affords Japan an opportunity to make a great contribution to world peace and progress. Japan takes her rightful place of equality and honor among the free nations of the world at a time when Communist imperial- ism, having already enslaved large areas and many unfortunate peoples, is seeking to ex- tend its system of tyranny and exploitation by direct and indirect aggression. We are confident that the people of Japan are alert to this danger and are ready and willing to play their full part in meeting the common menace. For their part, the American peo- ple will continue to work with the people of Japan to promote peace and security in ac- cordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. To this end, simultaneously with the coming into effect of the Treaty of Peace, the United States has exchanged ratifications with Japan, and thus also brought into concurrent effect, the Se- curity Treaty between the United States of America and Japan. note: On the same day, the President signed Proc- lamation 2974 "Termination of the National Emer- gencies Proclaimed on September 8, 1939, and May 27, 1941" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 158). See also Item 95. 112 Statement by the President and Message Upon Appointing Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. April 28, 1952 GEN. MATTHEW B. RIDGWAY has been appointed Supreme Allied Com- mander, Europe to replace General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower. This ap- pointment was made by the North Atlantic Council meeting in Paris. General Ridg- way was nominated for this position by me in response to the unanimous request of the Council that I nominate an American offi- cer for the post. General Ridgway's ap- pointment and General Eisenhower's release as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe will become effective approximately June i, 1952. I feel that General Ridgway is particularly well-qualified to perform the duties of Su- preme Commander. His service in the European theater in World War II and his leadership of the United Nations forces in Korea have been outstanding. His recent experience as Commander in Chief of the United Nations Command for Korea and as Supreme Commander Allied Powers in Japan have given him a broad background of international military responsibilities. 302 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 1 [114] General Ridgway brings exceptional knowl- edge of present-day combat, and of modern training needs and training methods to the common task of preparing our collective forces for the defense of Europe. I have every confidence that General Ridg- way will make an outstanding contribution to our common defense efforts. In accordance with General Ridgway's desires, I am continuing to make Gen. Alfred M. Gruenther available as Chief of Staff to SACEUR. General Gruenther has out- standing experience and abilities. He is thoroughly conversant in North Atlantic Treaty affairs and is well known to all of the NATO commanders. General Gruen- ther affords a continuity of staff leadership and planning to Supreme Headquarters that is especially valuable at this time. I have every confidence that Generals Ridgway and Gruenther will make an out- standing team for our common defense effort. The President's Message to General Ridgway THE North Atlantic Council has requested that I nominate an American officer for ap- pointment by the Council as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, to succeed General Eisenhower. I have nominated you for that position and the Council has appointed you. You have my highest personal esteem and best wishes as you assume this great respon- sibility. I know that all our people will be fully and warmly behind you as will all free- dom loving people the world over. I am appointing General Mark W. Clark as your successor. Harry S. Truman note: See also Item 113. 113 Statement by the President Upon Appointing Gen. Mark W. Clark To Succeed General Ridgway. April 28, 1952 I AM APPOINTING Gen. Mark W. Clark to succeed Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway as Commander in Chief of the U.N. Command for Korea and as Commander in Chief of the Far East Command of the U.S. Armed Forces. In making this appointment, I want to emphasize that General Clark will continue the policies which have been so ably carried out by General Ridgway with regard to the United Nations action in Korea, including, if possible, the achievement of an honorable armistice. note: See also Item 112. 114 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Reorganization Plan 5 of 1952. May 1, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952, prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949. This plan will enable the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia to bring about a basic simplification and im- provement of the government of the District of Columbia. While the plan will reorganize the Dis- trict government, it does not and cannot under the authority conferred by the Re- organization Act provide for home rule. As is well known, I strongly believe that the citizens of the District of Columbia are en- titled to self-government. I have repeatedly recommended, and I again recommend, en- actment of legislation to provide home rule 3°3 [114] May 1 Public Papers of the Presidents for the District of Columbia. Local self- government is both the right and the respon- sibility of free men. The denial of self- government does not befit the national capital of the world's largest and most powerful democracy. Not only is the lack of self-government an injustice to the people of the District of Columbia but it imposes a needless burden on the Congress and it tends to controvert the principles for which this country stands before the world. Vigorous efforts have been made in the last four sessions of the Congress to obtain legislation providing home rule and a mod- ern and effective governmental organization for the District of Columbia. It has been my hope that these two much-needed reforms could be accomplished in one measure. But each time the combination of the two has been used to help to defeat the legislation. As a result, the Senate last year separated the issues and passed a bill dealing only with home rule. While I consider both home rule and re- organization essential for the District, the structure of the District government has be- come so complicated, confused, and obsolete that a thorough reorganization cannot fur- ther be delayed. I have concluded that the Reorganization Act of 1949 affords the most appropriate procedure for accomplishing the needed organizational improvements. The present organization of the District government is the product of almost 50 years of piecemeal, planless growth. It has its origin in an act of 1874 which terminated self-government in the District. That act es- tablished an appointive, three-member com- mission to conduct the affairs of the District until a new permanent plan of local govern- ment could be developed. Four years later, no plan having been formulated, this in- terim, emergency arrangement was modified slightly and made permanent. Since then the population and the functions of the Dis- trict have multiplied and the structure of the District government has grown con- tinually more complex; yet little has been done to effect a significant improvement in the organization and bring it into line with present-day requirements. The failure to modernize the District gov- ernment has not been for want of careful surveys and well-developed plans. In no community has the local government been subject to fuller or more frequent analysis. Within the last 25 years there have been no less than six comprehensive studies of the organization of the District government. While the recommendations growing out of these studies have differed in detail, all have agreed on the necessity of integrating the many activities performed by the District government. The present organization of the District government is seriously deficient in a num- ber of respects. The first and most obvious defect is the extraordinary number of agen- cies among which the business of the Dis- trict is scattered. There are no less than 80 separate agencies in the government of the District of Columbia — one-third more than all the departments and agencies now in the executive branch of the Federal Govern- ment. Some of the agencies have been cre- ated by law and others by action of the Commissioners. Generally these established by the Commissioners have been recognized later in appropriation acts. Many of the ac- tivities and functions have been expanded or modified by subsequent congressional action. As a result, through the years, the legal status of many agencies has become ex- tremely complicated and obscure. Many District agencies are almost com- pletely autonomous and uncontrolled. Among those agencies are about fifty boards or commissions, a considerable number of which are not even subject to budgetary control by the Board of Commissioners or the Congress; they have their own funds and operate with permanendy appropriated receipts. While the Board of Commission- ers is nominally the executive head of the District government, its authority over agen- cies ranges from complete control to vir- tually no control. This plan constitutes an important first 304 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 1 [114] step in strengthening the organization of the government of the District of Columbia. By transferring to the Board of Commis- sioners the functions of most of the existing agencies, abolishing those agencies, and granting the Board broad authority to dele- gate its functions, the plan permits a major realignment of the administrative structure of the District government. It is the inten- tion of the Board of Commissioners to assign the functions of many of the existing agencies to a much smaller number of departments. A few District agencies are excluded from the operation of the plan. Principal of these are the judicial agencies, which are not sub- ject to the Reorganization Act, the National Guard, the Board of Library Trustees, the Board of Education, the Zoning Board, the Recreation Board, and the Public Utilities Commission. The plan empowers the Board of Com- missioners to provide for the performance of most of its executive functions by officers, agencies, and employees of the District gov- ernment. This provision authorizes appro- priate delegation of authority, both with and without the right of redelegation as the Commissioners may decide, and the with- drawal or modification of such delegation at any time. Regulatory functions vested in the Commissioners by statute are to be retained in the Board of Commissioners, as well as budget control, approval of con- tracts in excess of $25,000, and the appoint- ment and removal of the heads of agencies reporting directly to the Board of Commis- sioners. Under all delegations the Board will, of course, retain ultimate authority and responsibility. Like the head of any large organization, the Board of Commissioners should be given adequate top-level assistance in carrying on the operations of the District government. The success of the reorganization plan will to a considerable extent depend upon the ability to fill key positions with the best qualified persons. In order to do so it is necessary to make provision for more ade- quate salaries for such officers. The plan provides that not to exceed 15 officers may be compensated without regard to the nu- merical limitations on positions set forth in section 505 of the Classification Act of 1949, as amended. This provision will enable the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, or the President as the case may be, to ap- prove rates of pay for those officers in excess of the rates established in the Classification Act of 1949 for grade GS-15 whenever standards of the classification laws so per- mit. After investigation I have found and here- by declare that each reorganization included in Reorganization Plan No. 5 of 1952 is necessary to accomplish one or more of the purposes set forth in section 2(a) of the Re- organization Act of 1949. I have found and hereby declare that it is necessary to include in the accompanying reorganization plan, by reason of reorgani- zations made thereby, provisions for the appointment and compensation of officers specified therein. The rates of compensa- tion fixed for these officers are not in excess of those which I have found to prevail in respect of comparable officers in the execu- tive branch of the Federal Government. The plan abolishes the office of People's Counsel and its functions (section 3 of the act of December 15, 1926, D.C. Code, 1940 edition, sec. 43-205). These functions duplicate responsibilities of the Public Util- ities Commission. The Board of Commissioners will carry out the basic reorganization made possible by this plan as soon as practicable without disrupting the operation of the District gov- ernment and will complete the reorganiza- tion no later than June 30, 1953. There- after organizational adjustments can be made as conditions require. The primary benefits from this reorga- nization plan will take the form of improve- ments in administration and service. Many benefits in improved operations are to be expected in future years which will result in a reduction of expenditures as compared 305 [114] May 1 Public Papers of the Presidents with those that would be otherwise neces- sary. Any itemization of these reductions, in advance of actual experience under this plan, is not practicable. Harry S. Truman note: Reorganization Plan 5 of 1952 is published in the U.S. Statutes at Large (66 Stat. 824) and in the 1 949-1 953 Compilation of title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations (p. 1020). It became ef- fective on July 1, 1952. 115 The President's News Conference of May i, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I want to open this conference up by telling you that I don't intend to answer any questions on the steel controversy, so you won't get a book full of no comments. Now you can ask me about anything else you want. [2.] Q. Mr. President, there are rumors that Ambassador O'Dwyer 1 of Mexico has submitted his resignation to you. Is that true? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Not true? THE PRESIDENT. Not true. [3.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Brien McMahon has announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Would you talk about his qualifications? the president. I think very highly of Brien McMahon. I think he is qualified for the job. Looks like we are going to get some good candidates in the field. Brien McMahon is all right. Q. Mr. President, I think most of us have been convinced by what you said about your own candidacy, but I want to ask one clari- fying question. If the event should arise that you would be actually nominated by the convention in July, would you serve — would you run? the president. I would say no. I made that very plain in the statement that I made. Q. Mr. President, you said you would not run if nominated? the president. No. / would not run. Q. Mr. President, do you think the situa- tion might arise when Governor Stevenson 1 William O'Dwyer, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. of Illinois might accept a draft to nomina- tion? the president. Well now, that is a ques- tion for him to settle. He is another good man. He would make a good President. [4.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment to make on the visit here of Presi- dent Somoza of Nicaragua,2 who is coming in tonight? the president. He is coming, I think, to the White House for luncheon tomorrow, isn't that correct? I believe it is tomorrow? Joseph Short (Secretary to the President) : That is correct. Q. Who was that, Mr. President — I'm sorry? the president. The President of Nicara- gua, Mr. Somoza. His daughter, who is the wife of the Nicaraguan Ambassador 3 here, is a schoolmate of Margaret. [5.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if this would come under your ban? Mr. Wilson 4 said that you had bypassed him — I think he said "nine ways from Sunday" in the steel situation? the president. I haven't read Mr. Wil- son's comments, and I have no comment to make. Q. On that point, are you waiting for the steel thing to be settled down before you appoint a successor? Is that what the delay is? 2 President Anastasio Somoza. 3Guillermo Sevilla-Sacasa, Nicaraguan Ambassa- dor to the United States. 4 Charles E. Wilson, who resigned as Director of Defense Mobilization as a result of differences with the President on the steel wage-price policy. See also Item 70. 306 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 1 [115] the president. Not necessarily. Q. I see. the president. No, that isn't necessarily it. It would be better, I think, to wait until we get these big controversies settled before a successor is appointed. [6.] Q. Mr. President, this country has been getting a lot of protests lately, from Canada and Britain and Belgium, about in- creasing tariff protectionism as evidenced by Tariff Commission action on — applications for higher rates. And I believe Secretary Acheson said something about that the other day? the president. I think he answered the question amply yesterday in his press con- ference.5 Q. Are you disturbed about that trend? the president. No, I am not. I don't think there's any such a trend. [7.] Q. Mr. President, there are a lot of conflicting reports about what you might do when you get a tidelands bill before you. Could you explain whether you will or will not veto that legislation? the president. When the bill comes to me for action, then I will tell you exacdy what I will do.6 I can't make any advance promises on what I might do. Q. Mr. President, Mr. Smoot6a quoted you after a recent meeting and it was later repudiated. Would you comment on that? the president. No, I will not. [8.] Q. Mr. President, this may be a steel question you may not want to answer THE PRESIDENT. All right. Q. that I would like to ask you. Senator Humphrey said the other day that 5 The statement of Secretary of State Dean Acheson at his press conference on April 30 on the protests by the United Kingdom against increased use by the United States of trade agreement escape clauses is published in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 26, p. 737). 6 For the President's statement upon vetoing the bill concerning title to offshore lands, see Item 146. 6aI. A. Smoot, a former postmaster at Salt Lake City, Utah. you would accept the decision of the Su- preme Court in the steel seizure.7 the president. Of course I would. Of course I would. Q. Well, then, as far as you are con- cerned, the system of checks and balances goes on unimpeded? the president. Why certainly. Unim- peded. I have no ambition to be a dictator. All I have been trying to do is keep the country running. [9.] Q. Mr. President, there are also reports that you are prepared to seize the oil industry because of the pending strike? [Laughter'] the president. It has not been put up to me. I am hoping they will settle it. They are very close to settlement. [10.] Q. Mr. President, along the steel sidelight lines, Representative Kilburn of New York said yesterday at a House Bank- ing and Currency hearing that it was his opinion that if the Defense Production Act were not amended in the labor section so as to prevent a recurrence of the present con- troversy— that the House would not extend the Defense Production Act. Have you any comment on that? the president. No comment. Q. Mr. President, there have been reports that you might make a radio address, or send another message to Congress on the steel situation. Anything in that? the president. I am not ready to make the announcement on that at this time. I am going to do everything I possibly can to get the matter straightened out, of course. What I want to do is to produce steel. We need steel. Steel is what I have been trying to get all the time. Nothing else. [11.] Q. Sir, just to complete the record, you have stated that if you were nominated you would not run. Referring to the gen- eral named Sherman, I believe. the president. Yes? Q. Would you serve if elected? [Laugh- ter] 7 On June 2 the Supreme Court ruled the seizure of the steel plants unconstitutional. 307 [115] May 1 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. If I refuse the nomination, I couldn't be elected. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, we couldn't hear your reply over here, sir. Q. Couldn't hear you, Mr. President. the president. Well, he was quoting General Sherman. He wanted to know if I would go on and finish the sentence as Sherman did — if elected he wouldn't serve. I said if I do not accept the nomination I can't be elected. And that ends that. [12.] Q. Mr. President, does this inter- fere with your statement at the outset that you didn't want to answer questions about steel? Is it possible for you to answer this question? How long could we go in this present situation, that is, with the plants shut down? Is it possible to answer that question? the president. Well, I can't answer that without going into the whole thing in de- tail, and I don't want to do that while this matter is pending. I am going to take every action possible to get steel. Q. Mr. President, including an injunc- tion? the president. I am going to take every action possible to get steel. [13.] Q. Mr. President, you just men- tioned that you had no ambition to be a dic- tator. Do you believe, however, that emer- gency seizure powers could ever be used by a future President along such lines? the president. Well now, we can't answer that question until we have the final deci- sion. It may require legislation. We'll see. Q. Mr. President, there is some legisla- tion specifically covering the seizure of steel plants, isn't there, in the Selective Service Act? the president. I don't know. I can't answer that question. [14.] Mr. President, there have been reports that a couple of Senators, anyway, have been sitting on postmaster nominations pending congressional action on the reor- ganization plan which you sent to the Hill.8 8 See Item 85. Do you approve of such action? the president. I don't know anything about it. I sent a reorganization plan down hoping that it would be accepted, and I think that will answer your question; but I don't know anything about action by indi- vidual Senators. [15.] Q. Mr. President, have you had any report from Ambassador Briggs on his visit with Mr. Oatis? 9 the president. Yes. His message was re- ported to me by the Secretary of State this morning. He said he found Mr. Oatis in good health, that he had had a recent hair- cut and had had some dental work done, that he had not been hungry, that he had gotten to the point now where he could sleep. We are doing everything we can to get him out, and we are going to continue just that. [16.] Q. Mr. President, I will make one more try. the president. Go ahead, Pete.10 Q. Secretary Sawyer said that the steel- workers were not striking against the Gov- ernment. Whom are they striking against? Mr. Short [to the President]: Secretary Sawyer did not say that. the president. Wait a minute. Q. He said, "The union certainly did not strike against the Government." Q. Whom did they strike against? the president. I will let you answer the question, Pete. Q. I don't know. That is what I am try- ing to clarify. the president. I can't answer the ques- tion— at the present time. I will tell you about it later. Q. Mr. President, that question having been raised, the next question is, do you think the strike was justified at the time it was called? 9 Ellis O. Briggs, U.S. Ambassador to Czecho- slovakia, had been allowed to visit William N. Oatis, an American newspaperman imprisoned in Prague on a charge of espionage. See also Item 49 [12]. 10 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 308 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 2 [116] the president. I have no comment. [17.] Q. Mr. President, someone brought up the Selective Service Act as giving you authority to take over steel plants, and then you said you didn't know. Subdivision H, after referring to the fact that you can order it if you feel it necessary to the defense pro- gram, says, "If any such producer of steel, or responsible head or heads thereof, refuses to comply with such requirement, the Presi- dent through the Secretary of Defense is authorized to take immediate possession of the plant or plants of such producer or producers, and through the appropriate branch, bureau, or department of the Armed Forces, to insure compliance with such requirements." Would you say that is legis- lative authority ? the president. We haven't gotten to that point as yet. [18.] Q. Mr. President, can you com- ment on the May Day rioting in Tokyo, in which American property was damaged and American personnel were injured? the president. I have had no official com- munication on the subject, so I can't com- ment on it. [19.] Q. Mr. President, could you say whether or not the solution of this steel crisis might follow the pattern of 1946? the president. I can't. I can't answer your questions on steel, and you can dodge around all you want to, now, you're just wasting time. I will talk to you about any- thing else. [20.] Q. Mr. President, you have had some kind words to say about a couple of Democratic potentials. Have you ever noticed whether the — one of the Republi- can— leading Republican contenders for the Presidency was a sick man? Eisenhower n — there have been some stories that he is an ailing man. the president. Oh no, he's not anything of the kind. He's in perfect health. He's as fine a man as ever walked. I have told you that time and again. He's just begin- ning to find out what happens to a candi- date. [Laughter] That's mild to what he will have to face a little later on. [21.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Wil- liams made charges the other day regarding loans to the Democratic National Commit- tee— Democratic committee in New York that had been charged off as tax losses. Senator George has introduced a bill to ban such loans. Do you think that's good the president. I don't know anything about it at all. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. All right. note: President Truman's three hundred and sec- ond news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 4 p.m. on Thursday, May 1, 1952. 11 General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower. 116 Telegrams to Industry Leaders and to the Union President Calling a Meeting on the Steel Strike. May 2, 1952 [ Released May 2, 1952. Dated May 1, 1952 ] THE UNITED STATES Court of Appeals has granted an order staying the order of the United States District Court enjoining the operation of the steel mills by the Govern- ment. Thus the Government is now in a position to continue the operation of the steel mills in the national interest. The continued production of steel is of critical importance to the safety of our troops in Korea, and to the success of the Mutual Security Program, and the entire national defense effort. In order to avoid a costly loss in output, it is vital that steel production be resumed as soon as possible. I therefore request you, as a loyal American, to do everything you can to restore the steel plants to full operation as quickly as possible, in order that we may obtain the steel we must 309 55-672—66 [n6] May 2 Public Papers of the Presidents have for our national safety. I also request you to meet with me in my office at 10 a.m., Saturday, May 3, 1952. I am asking Mr. Philip Murray and the presi- dents of five other steel companies to meet with us at that time to begin further con- ferences seeking an immediate settlement of the issues between the companies and the union. Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical telegrams ad- dressed to Benjamin Moreel, Chairman, Board of Directors, Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., Pitts- burgh, Pa., Frank Purnell, President, Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., Youngstown, Ohio, Benjamin Fairless, President, United States Steel Corp., Pitts- burgh, Pa., Charles M. White, President, Republic Steel Corp., Cleveland, Ohio, A. B. Homer, Presi- dent, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Pa., and Clarence Randall, President, Inland Steel Co., Chi- cago, III. A similar telegram was sent to Philip Murray, President, United Steelworkers of America, Pitts- burgh, Pa. The last three sentences of the tele- gram to Mr. Murray read as follows: "I therefore request you and all the members of the steel workers union, as loyal Americans, to do everything you can to restore the steel plants to full operation as quickly as possible, in order that we may obtain the steel we must have for our national safety. "I request you to meet with me in my office at 10 a.m., Saturday, May 3, 1952. I am also asking the presidents of the six largest steel companies to meet with me at that time to begin further con- ferences seeking an immediate settlement of the issues between the union and the companies." See also Item 118. 117 Address at the 70th Anniversary Meeting of the National Civil Service League. May 2, 1952 Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: It gives me great pleasure to be here with you this evening. I have a deep apprecia- tion and admiration for the loyal, hard- working, and able men and women who make up our civil service. I have worked in all kinds of government — in fact I know government from precinct to President. I know it in the county, I know it in Federal and State legislative and executive — but I have never known a better group of people than the civil service employees of the Fed- eral Government of the United States. I have been interested in public service for over 30 years. In fact, on the 3d day of next January I will have been in elective public office exactly 30 years. Ever since I was first elected a judge of a county court in Jackson County, Missouri, I have been interested in government. Now don't get the idea that a judge of a county court of Missouri knows anything about law. He doesn't. It's an administrative office. Let me tell you something I have learned in my 30 years of public office: Good govern- ment is good politics; and the best politics is what is best for all the people. Of course, there are very important dif- ferences between being an elective official and serving in the civil service. Our elec- tive officials are politically responsible; they must answer to the people. And they must make the major policy decisions. The role of our civil servant is to carry out these policy decisions and sometimes we have a terrible time to get them to do it. But there is the great bond of public service holding both groups together. Both are working together for the good of all the people of this great country. The people are entitled to the most effi- cient public service we can devise. The way to provide such service is to make sure that all Government employees, except those in top policy jobs, are under the merit system. It has consistendy been my goal to bring this about. I am happy to report that the goal is now in sight. We have made great progress since 1881, when the National Civil Service League was organized. Then there was virtually no 310 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 2 [117] civil service. By the turn of the century 50 percent of Federal employees were under civil service. And now, over 93 percent of all Federal employees in the United States are under the competitive civil service. This is the highest percentage in the history of our Government. That is a remarkable achieve- ment, but it is by no means the whole story. In addition to our regular civil service, spe- cial merit systems have been set up for vari- ous agencies, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, the Tennessee Valley Author- ity, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When those are taken into account, the number of employees covered by the merit system comes to 99 percent of the total. I am proud that during my term of office we have extended the merit system to cover virtually all Federal positions. Our career civil service is still a long way from perfect; but it is in better shape than it has ever been before in the history of the country. We are going forward with our plans to eliminate the last remnants of the patronage system. But these efforts meet with the same kind of resistance, the same kind of hypocritical opposition, that has greeted every effort to make the Federal Service better. The patronage seekers are still on the prowl. Just a few weeks ago, for example, I sent to Congress my plan to reorganize the Bu- reau of Internal Revenue. The purpose of this plan is to place under the Civil Service all the positions in the Bureau, with the sole exception of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. In short, this plan takes all our tax collectors out of partisan politics. Of course it also takes that much patronage away from the Members of the Senate. You know I was in the Senate 10 years; I know how they feel. And what a howl of anguish went up from the patronage boys. Just as you might expect, those who cried the loudest were the very ones who had been making the most noise about the misdeeds of political em- ployees. If you want to know who these gentlemen are, just get the Congressional Record and read the list of those who voted against the plan. Well, we fought them and we beat them, and we won a major victory for the merit system. On April 10th I sent three more reorga- nization plans to the Congress. Reorgani- zation Plan 2 would take postmasters out of partisan politics by abolishing the require- ment that they be appointed by the Presi- dent and confirmed by the Senate. Under Reorganization Plan 3 all political offices in the Bureau of Customs would be eliminated and the work would be carried on by quali- fied civil service appointees. Reorganiza- tion Plan 4 would place the positions of U.S. marshals under Civil Service. You will hear a bigger roar about that than you did about the collectors of internal revenue. When these three reorganization plans are approved, only a handful of positions will remain outside the merit system. But that doesn't mean the job of the National Civil Service League is finished — far from it. We have created a career public service throughout the Federal Government — now we must fight to protect it and keep it. There is a new attack on the civil service — an attack which holds more dangers than the spoilsman. This new attack is an at- tempt to gain political ends by the shame- ful method of defaming and degrading the people who work for the Government of the United States. To understand exactly what we are up against calls for another lesson in politics. In the normal operation of our democratic system, every administration is held to account every 4 years for its policies, its pro- grams, and its conduct of the Government. That is as it should be. In recent years the programs and the policies of the administra- tion in office have been upheld, time after time, by the popular verdict. Today the time for another accounting is approaching, and the opposition is becoming rather frantic. They know that they cannot persuade the people to give up the gains of the last 20 years. But they think they can undermine 3" [117] May 2 Public Papers of the Presidents those gains by attacking the men and women who have the job of carrying out the pro- grams of the Government. And so they have launched a campaign to make people think that the Government service as a whole is lazy, inefficient, corrupt, and even disloyal. Now, these confusers do not for a mo- ment believe their own charges. The Gov- ernment servant is not the real target of their attack. They are engaged in a ruth- less, cynical attempt to put over a gigantic hoax and fraud on the American people. They say, "Let's make the public think that the Government servicers full of crooks and thieves. Let's create the impression that all public servants are bad. Let's tell the people that the Government servants are Reds. Let's confuse innuendo with fact, rumor with evidence, charge with guilt. If the real people get mad enough and con- fused enough, we won't have to take a posi- tion on any of the great public policy issues; we can sneak into office by the back door." Now that is what they think they can do, but I'll tell you right now they are not going to be able to do it. They tried it in 1948 much to their sorrow. There is only one effective way to deal with this attack and that is to wage a cam- paign of truth. Chairman Ramspeck has courageously started such a campaign, but he needs the help of all of us. He needs the help of every Government employee in order to let the people know that the Govern- ment employees are honest men and good workers. It is time to blast the rumors, the false inferences and innuendoes, the downright lies about the public service. Take the charge that most Federal em- ployees are unnecessary. This is completely untrue. It is just as false as it can be. Fifty percent of our civilian employees are in the Defense Department — engaged di- rectly in military activities of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. They man our ar- senals, shipyards, supply depots, and weap- ons laboratories. Most of them are me- chanics, steelworkers, riveters, electricians, and other artisans. In addition to that, another 28 percent of the total are in the Post Office Department and the Veterans Administration. That adds up to 78 percent in just three agencies. The remaining 22 percent perform all the other functions of the Government — staffing such vital agencies as the FBI, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Soil Conservation Service and Reclamation, the Employment Service and Public Health. This 22 percent covers a great many peacetime activities of the Government, as well as all the national security activities outside the Department of Defense. Except for these national se- curity emergency activities, employment in the normal peacetime operations of the Gov- ernment has been cut back since Korea. Now you never hear that — you won't see that in the papers — and unless you listen to me over the radio you will never find out that that is true. The people who carry on these operations are not useless bureaucrats. If they are, so am I. They are performing necessary serv- ices for the good of the American people — for their protection and welfare. They are performing services which the American people have demanded and the Congress has authorized by law. And they are per- forming them well and efficiently. But the detractors are not satisfied with at- tacking the Federal Service as a whole. They have launched a personal campaign against the Government worker himself. He is pictured as mediocre, shiftless, lazy, non- productive, a feeder at the public trough who couldn't get a job anywhere else. At one moment he is berated as a low-salaried non- entity with no standing in his field, and in the next breath he is called a high-salaried drain on the public purse. What are the facts ? Government workers are like any other American citizens throughout the country. Only 10 percent are employed in Washington, D.C.; the 312 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 2 [117] remainder are in every State of our Union. California has more Federal employees than the Nation's Capital. Get that now. Cali- fornia has more Federal employees than the Nation's Capital. More than 850,000 of all Federal em- ployees, one-third of the total, are artisans and skilled craftsmen. The others include scientists, doctors, nurses — people in almost every trade and profession. Are these people mediocre, shiftless, lazy, nonproductive? Not at all. Of course they are not. Gov- ernment workers come out at the top in nearly every contest for efficiency and ingenuity. In 1950 a business efficiency organization sponsored a contest "for the best productive ideas." Government em- ployees took the top honors. Their proven ingenuity and initiative had saved the tax- payers $22,000,000 in 1 year alone. There are hundreds of examples of out- standing public service in the records of Federal employees. I am going to cite some of them. Last year for example, Dr. Thomas L. Mc- Meekin, a chemist in the Agriculture De- partment, won top honors from the Ameri- can Chemical Society for his outstanding work on the chemistry of milk proteins. An employee of the Maritime Admin- istration, Clarence Mercer, has invented a water blast method of removing scale from ships, which will save the Government over $1 million a year. An employee of the Air Force, Irving Gordy, has carried on research in the electronics field that makes it possible to use a simple mechanism costing $30 in place of a machine costing $6,000. And all these inventions belong to the Government of the United States and these men do not profit a penny by having brought them to light. In engineering, in medicine, in the field of ordnance, the scientific and technical ad- vances made by Federal employees are sav- ing the Government millions and millions of dollars. Literally thousands of Govern- ment employees have achieved high recogni- tion in their special fields, and are using their skills and abilities for the good of us all. They are patriotic citizens and if you don't think they can do better in private in- dustry you are just as mistaken as you can be. But they like Government service and they want to do something for the Govern- ment and the people — they stay there and do it. The demagogues say that Government employees are responsible for high taxes. That is a good one and one that goes into every campaign. You hear it time and again. The fact is that only 13 percent of our budget is for wages and salaries. Our budget is large and our taxes are high be- cause of the threat of Soviet imperialism. We have to build strong defenses. This is an expensive business, and lots of people grumble about it. But it is a costly and destructive luxury to take our feelings out on our public servants. Berating our public servants doesn't help our defense, it weakens us. In this time of crisis, we should try to improve our public service — not tear it down. Now let me take up one other kind of charge against our public servants — and this is the most vicious and insidious of all. I say with all the emphasis at my command, that there is no more cancerous, no more corrosive, no more subversive attack upon the great task of our Government today, than that which seeks to undermine con- fidence in Government by irresponsible charges against the loyalty and integrity of Government employees. There is no room in the Government serv- ice for anyone who is not true to his public trust. We have had a few bad people turn up in Government, just as they turn up in business and industry. They are not in the Government now, and we are prosecuting all those who have violated the criminal statutes. If we turn up any more, they can expect the same treatment — and if there are any more we will turn them up, kick them 3J3 [117] May 2 Public Papers of the Presidents out, and prosecute them if they need to be prosecuted. But I will not tolerate the smearing and slandering of Government employees as a group. We have every right to protest and to raise the roof against the deliberate cre- ation— for private political purposes — of these unjust charges — of an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust against public em- ployees. I am just not going to stand for it. I am starting now and I am giving warning that the people that are going to slander the Government employees are going to have trouble with me — starting now until No- vember— and the best part about it is I am not running for anything. We have a right to protest against the creation of an atmos- phere in which any charge is a conviction in the public mind, despite the lack of evidence. We are not defending evildoers when we demand that the whole truth be stated — that the other side of the ledger be examined. The truth is that the Government service, in the light of its tremendous size and scope, has a remarkable record of honesty and in- tegrity. I firmly believe that its ethical standards are as high as those of any Gov- ernment in the history of the world. I firmly believe that its ethical standards are higher than those prevailing in the Ameri- can business community, and the Senate's own Committee on Ethics in Government agrees with me wholeheartedly. You read the report they made on the subject. It is a curious fact that those in the busi- ness world who shout the loudest about cor- ruption in Government are those who most often approach the Government with their hands out. It is a tragic fact that those in the political world who shout the loudest about corruption in Government are moti- vated by such a lust for power that they are willing to wreck the lives and the careers of innocent public servants. Of course, the worst kind of an attack upon Government employees has been the attack on their loyalty. Here, the technique of the attackers is the same; innuendo and smear and just plain common, ordinary, everyday lies. And the motivation is the same; they want to get votes. The truth is that we can be more confident of the unswerving loyalty of employees in the executive branch of our Government than of any other group of people in the Nation. They are the only large group of employees in the Nation, public or private, subjected to such systematic and thoroughgoing in- vestigation. And the record is one of which they can well be proud. Every employee in the executive branch is checked by the FBI. Only 384 employees, or nine one-thou- sandths of 1 percent of all those checked, had to be discharged on loyalty grounds — think of that. This is the real picture, based on hard fact. It is a shameful and degrading thing to try to mislead the American people into thinking it is otherwise. We must always be vigilant in guarding the public service against the infiltration of disloyal elements. But we must be just as vigilant in protect- ing employees against unjust accusations. The loyalty program was designed to pro- tect innocent employees as well as the Gov- ernment. When I set it up, I intended it to expose the guilty and at the same time to safeguard the rights and the reputations of those who were innocent. But I have be- come increasingly concerned in recent months by attempts to use the loyalty pro- program as a club with which to beat Gov- ernment employees over the head. Political gangsters are attempting to pervert the pro- gram into an instrument of intimidation and blackmail, to coerce or destroy any who dare to oppose them. These men and those who abet them have besmirched the reputations of decent, loyal public servants. They have not hesitated to lie, under cover of congres- sional immunity, of course, and to repeat the lies again and again. This is a matter for great concern. It is a matter of great concern to me. These tac- tics contain the seeds of tyranny. Can we be sure that people who employ such tactics are really loyal to our form of Government, with 314 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 3 [118] its Bill of Rights and its tradition of indi- vidual liberty? The fact is that they are breaking these things down. They are undermining the foundation stones of our Constitution. I believe such men betray our country and all it stands for. I believe they are as grave a menace as the Communists. In fact, I think they are worse than Commu- nists and I think they are partners with them. It is not your job to take sides in partisan political controversy. But it is your duty and the duty of all citizens to demand the truth about the Government service and to reject the smear campaign at the base, and call it the immoral evil that it is. In particular, it is your job to fight the attempt to reduce the civil servant to the status of a second-class citizen. This can be done, without taking sides in politics, by placing the facts about the civil service before the people. It can be done, without partisanship, in the name of ordinary decency and fair play. The history of the National Civil Service League shows that it is well equipped to deal with the problem before us. You can count on me, in office or out, to keep on fighting to uphold the Govern- ment service. I am confident that I can count on you as well. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 9:30 p.m. at the May- flower Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Nicholas Kelley, presi- dent of the National Civil Service League and vice president and general counsel of the Chrysler Corp. The address was broadcast. For the President's messages to Congress trans- mitting the first four reorganization plans of 1952, see Items 11, 84-87. 118 Remarks at a Meeting With Steel Industry and Labor Leaders. May 3, 1952 I HAVE asked you to meet here today to reach agreement on the issues in dispute between you. As President of the United States, rep- resenting all the people of the country, I have two principal interests in this matter. First, it is absolutely necessary, for the safety of the country, that steel production must continue during the emergency. I cannot reveal, even to you people here, the exact situation with regard to the supply and production of military items. I can only say, on the considered advice of the officials in charge of our defense program, that the safety of our troops fighting in Korea, and the safety of our Nation in the present world crisis, depend on the unin- terrupted production of steel. Second, it is essential to the economic health of our country and the welfare of our people that wage and price increases in the steel industry shall be held within the limits of sound stabilization policies. A runaway inflation in this country could wreck our economy and impose terrific hard- ship on millions of families. These are heavy stakes. And they impose an equally heavy responsibility on every one of you to act in the national interest. Because of the vital importance of un- interrupted production of steel, I was forced 3 weeks ago to direct the Secretary of Com- merce to operate the mills. That action is now being challenged in the courts, as is entirely proper. None of us know how soon it will be decided. In the meantime, the mills are under Gov- ernment operation. I have said many times that the idea of Government operation of the steel plants is thoroughly distasteful to me. I have had to operate the coal mines one time and I didn't like that either. I want it ended as quickly as possible. The best, the quickest, and the most equitable way for this to be done is for the companies and the union to 315 [118] May 3 Public Papers of the Presidents bargain out the issues in dispute and agree on a settlement. That is what I am asking you to do now. And I am asking you, as the head of the greatest government in the world, to get down on earth and talk to each other with- out any ill feeling, and to get this thing done. I am sure you are aware that the Govern- ment has been considering what are fair and reasonable wages and working conditions for the employees during the period that the plants remain under Government opera- tion. Two weeks ago, the Secretary of Com- merce asked the Economic Stabilization Ad- ministrator to prepare recommendations for changes in terms and conditions of em- ployment in the steel industry at this time. Those recommendations have now been completed, and the Government will be pre- pared on Monday morning, or as soon as we can get ready, to order changes in terms and conditions of employment to be put into effect. I do not want the Government to have to fix terms and conditions of employment. That is your job, not ours. If we must take action it will be something that is not satis- factory to either side. But we will have no choice if you cannot agree. I consider it extremely unfortunate that the Government may find itself in a position where it has to fix the terms and condi- tions of employment in an industry. However, the purpose of these meetings is not to discuss terms and conditions of em- ployment during Government operation. The purpose is to try to reach an agreement between the parties so that Government operation can be brought to an end. In these meetings, you have the oppor- tunity to settle this dispute as it should be settled. You can reach agreement if you have the will to do so. You have all been over the issues between you many times. Days and weeks have al- ready been spent in negotiations. You know which points are the crucial ones. You know this matter can be settled in a few hours. In the interest of your country, for the welfare of the United States, and for the welfare of the world, I am asking you to make that setdement. We all know that a big issue in this whole controversy is the steel companies' claim for higher prices as a result of any wage increase that might be agreed upon. As I have said on a number of occasions, there is only one proper way to settle this entire controversy. First, the parties should reach agreement on the issues in dispute between them. Then, the companies should present their claims for price increases to the proper Gov- ernment officials. On their part, the stabilization officials of the Government are prepared to consider the steel companies' claims on their merits, and to make sure that the steel companies receive whatever price adjustment they are entitled to under the law. Gentlemen, the eyes of the Nation are upon you as you meet here in the White House today. You represent two powerful economic groups who have contributed im- measurably to the greatness of our country. You have great power; and, because of that fact, you all have great responsibility. You have achieved your strength in a democracy which places its faith in the ability of its people to work out their own problems as reasonable men in the national interest. I urge you to reaffirm that faith by settling your differences now in this time of critical national need. This room — the President's Cabinet Room — is yours for these meetings. Some great decisions affecting the welfare of our country have been made in this room. Your agreement on a setdement of this dispute would rank with any of them as a contribu- tion to the common defense and the general welfare of our Nation. I am asking John Steelman to sit with you, to help you in trying to reach an agree- ment, and to keep me constantly advised of your progress. 316 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 5 [119] Now, gentlemen, I have never felt as strongly about anything as I do about this situation. We have a national defense pro- gram which is right on the verge of success. For 7 years, from April 12, 1945, until now, I have spent my whole time trying to keep this country out of a third world war. If we can get the economic situation and the defense situation in Western Europe through to a successful conclusion, and that depends on steel, if we can get the situation in the Far East settled on a basis that is fair to all concerned, I am just as sure as I sit here that we'll get a world peace. And with the development of the world after that world peace, there won't be a chance for our industry to catch up with the demand. Then that means the welfare of labor; it means the welfare of industry. I don't think any of you can complain about the situation of the economy at the present time. There's been a fair distribution of profits; there's been a fair distribution of earnings; there's been a fair distribution of the farm income. All of you are more prosperous than you have ever been in the history of this country. Never in the history of the world has there been an economic situation that equals it, and you gentlemen can't afford to upset that situation over a private quarrel between labor and industry. I want you to forget all your emotions now and sit here and see what you can do. Mr. Sawyer has been the operator under the present circumstances, and he's been fair and decent in this matter. We are going to continue to be fair and decent to you. I didn't send for you just to make a speech. I sent for you for action and, gen- demen, I want it. note: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House to representatives of steel companies and the United Steelworkers of America. During his remarks he referred to Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Commerce, Roger L. Putnam, Admin- istrator of the Economic Stabilization Agency, and John R. Steelman, The Assistant to the President and Acting Director of Defense Mobilization. For the President's telegrams which led to the meeting, see item 1 1 6. 119 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Proposed Legislation on a National System of Flood Disaster Insurance. May 5, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: Last summer, following the great floods in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, I rec- ommended that the Congress establish a na- tional system of flood disaster insurance. As I said then, the lack of such an insurance system is a major gap in the means by which a man can make his home, his farm, or his business secure against financial loss. In order to be of help to the Congress in its further consideration of this matter, I have had draft legislation prepared embody- ing the views of the Executive agencies con- cerned as to the best way to set up a sound and workable flood insurance system. A copy of this draft legislation is attached to this message, and the agencies that prepared it, particularly the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, stand ready to give the Con- gress any further help they can. The reasons for enacting such legislation are very clear. At present, insurance against flood damage is virtually unobtainable from private insurance companies, nor does it seem likely that the private companies, by themselves, will find it possible to write flood insurance at reasonable rates. The need for such insurance, however, is urgent. Home- owners, farmers, and businessmen may have their assets and their savings of years wiped out in a few hours if a disastrous flood strikes their property. We have seen it happen year after year. To meet this situation, we can and should 95-672— <66 317 [119] May 5 Public Papers of the Presidents make available to those in potential flood areas the opportunity to protect themselves against the financial losses which such floods bring. I am sure that the great majority of the people concerned want to provide in ad- vance out of their own resources for protection of their property against floods — ■ just as they do now against fire and other hazards. A Federal system of flood insurance is the logical answer. It would enable individual property-owners to pool their risks, and to meet a large part of their losses out of their common funds — rather than forcing them to rely upon emergency relief, as is too often the case now. It would provide funds needed to restore property damaged in floods, without requiring people to borrow heavily against their future incomes. Insurance is especially important under present circumstances when our system of protection against floods is so incomplete. Flood insurance, however, has more than short-run significance. It is also necessary as part of our long-run attack on the flood problem. Dealing with floods at their source, by doing the necessary work on the land and in the stream beds to catch and hold flood waters, will always be our major weapon for preventing flood damage. Lim- its also need to be placed on the use of the flood plains, through State and local zoning laws, wherever the cost of complete protec- tion from floods would be prohibitive. But flood insurance will always be necessary to protect people against the financial losses which may be caused by unexpected and catastrophic floods which it is impossible to prevent. The attached draft legislation would au- thorize the Reconstruction Finance Corpora- tion to provide either insurance or reinsur- ance against losses resulting from floods. If private insurance companies wish to do so, under this bill they could write insurance against floods and could then reinsure them- selves against excessive loss by paying appro- priate premiums to the Reconstruction Fi- nance Corporation. Or, alternatively, the Corporation would be authorized to issue insurance policies direcdy. The Corpora- tion, of course, should not compete with pri- vate insurance companies. The draft bill would prohibit the issuance of Federal policies in cases where private insurance is available at reasonable rates. In addition, it would require the Corporation to work through private insurance companies in ad- ministering the program. This draft bill would authorize insurance to be made available for homes, for business and farm properties, and for agricultural commodities. It would also establish a maximum amount of insurance for any one person or business of $250,000. While this would not cover some of the large losses in a flood, it would take care of the homeowners, businessmen, and farmers who are least able to afford flood losses because their total assets are small. As experience is gained, it may be desirable to change this maximum amount. Furthermore, the bill would limit the in- surance payment on any given property to 90 percent or less of the loss sustained. Such a limitation will preserve the incentive for the property-owner to do what he can to protect his own property. I believe that this flood insurance program should be set up on a basis that is designed to permit the Government to break even. To do so, it will be necessary that rates be set high enough to cover all expenses, includ- ing a proper reserve for losses. However, since there is only limited experi- ence upon which to rely in determining such rates, it will be necessary to start the program on an experimental basis, both with respect to rates and areas covered. Accordingly, the draft legislation provides for limitations on the total amount of insurance to be written in each of the first three years, and for a re- port to the Congress by the Corporation before the end of that period, making recom- mendations concerning the nature and extent of the program thereafter. In addition, the draft legislation authorizes Federal agencies that make or guarantee 318 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 6 [120] loans to require borrowers to purchase flood insurance where it is available. Thus the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, for ex- ample, might require its borrowers to carry flood insurance, where appropriate, just as it now requires them to carry fire insurance. All in all, I believe this draft legislation represents a sound and workable approach, and I heartily recommend it to the consid- eration of the Congress. I strongly believe that legislation along these lines is most urgently needed. There is no reason what- ever for continuing to rely on inadequate and emergency relief programs to take care of the thousands of people every year who suffer extensive flood damage to their homes and farms and businesses. We can and we should provide a business- like system of insurance to finance the restoration of such losses. I hope the Con- gress will enact such a system without delay. Harry S. Truman note: The draft bill, transmitted with the President's message, is printed in House Document 458 (82d Cong., 2d sess.)« 120 Remarks at the 21st Annual Banquet of the National Housing Conference. May 6, 1952 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Housing Conference: It is a pleasure indeed for me to be able to come over here for a few minutes. You know, I have been right busy here lately, and it is hard for me to get anywhere. I understand that I missed some excellent talks here tonight, and I am sorry for it. I wish I could have heard them all. Even if I did serve 10 years in the Senate, I still like to hear Senators speak. I am very glad to have this opportunity to speak to the National Housing Conference. You have a wonderful record in helping to get decent housing done for the American people, and I as President appreciate every- thing you have done. If everybody had a viewpoint about public interest and the wel- fare of the people similar to yours, it would be wonderful — what a really great happy country we could have. But there are a lot of people who don't feel that way, and you know very well from your battles with the real estate lobby that that is so. We had a housing battle after the war. You will remember how we started out, after that war, to get Congress to pass com- prehensive legislation. I sent a message to Congress with a 21 -point program, in Sep- tember 1945. And that 21-point program is just as good today as it was in 1945 — and some of it hasn't been done yet. One of those points was a housing program — public housing and slum clearance, and urban de- velopment and housing loan guarantees. You people were already working for that kind of legislation, and you know what I am talking about. The Senate had a bill before it. I talked about this bill some, in 1948 — the Wagner- Ellender-Taft bill. That was in the 79th Congress, and we tried to get it through and came very close to success. The Senate passed the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill in 1946, but it was blocked by the Republican Members of the House committee. Then came that famous 80th Congress — the one I made famous. This time the bill was called the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill. It was still a good bill. Changing the names around didn't hurt it a bit. The Democrats tried again and again in both the Senate and the House to get the bill through, but they were blocked at every turn of the road by the Republicans. Then the Republicans adjourned and went to their convention in Philadelphia, and put a plank in their platform saying they were for housing legislation — the very thing they had been fighting against for 3 years. 3J9 [120] May 6 Public Papers of the Presidents So I called them back into session on Turnip Day, July 26th, to see if they meant what they said in their Philadelphia plat- form. You remember what happened. Senator Taft himself turned against the bill, and asked the Senate to kill it, and the Sen- ate did kill it. And then that famous 80th Congress passed a housing bill, but there was so little in it, it was called the "teeny-weeny housing bill." And it was "teeny-weeny." Things got better after the election of 1948. We had a new Congress in 1949, and we finally got the housing bill passed — and it was a good bill. The real estate lobby took a good licking, for once, and you people here had a lot to do with it. And I congratulate you on that. I say that a great deal of the credit for that victory — a victory for the welfare of all the people — should go to Senator May- bank and Congressman Spence, the Chair- men of the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees. The bill never would have passed without those two gentle- men. I would think that the real estate lobbies might have given up after that, but they didn't. They are a stubborn and selfish lot and, besides, some of them make a living by fighting against housing. Real estate lob- bies have been going all up and down the country into the local communities, trying to throw monkey wrenches into public hous- ing and slum clearance programs. Out in Los Angeles it took the courts to save the public housing, after the real estate boys got to work. And I haven't got any- thing against real estate men — I used to be in the real estate business myself. But, I think, in this public business, they ought to use a little judgment — they would be much better off if they did — because it will help them just as much as it will everybody else. The lobby has been busy here in Wash- ington. They have been very busy. They have been trying to choke the public housing program to death by cutting off its appro- priations. And I am sorry to say that that seems to be a policy now, to try to ham- string the Government by cutting off ap- propriations. They are trying to choke the Executive Office to death, and they are about to ruin our national defense program. And they really don't know what they are doing. I am going to tell them about it one of these days, in words of one syllable. Within 2 years from the time Congress passed the law authorizing 135,000 units a year as a reasonable goal for public housing, the lobby was here trying to get it cut to 5,000. Last year they almost succeeded, and this year they are at it again. When the House of Representatives passed the appro- priation bill this time, they put the 5,000- unit limit on again. I had asked for 75,000 units. Now we will have to try to get the number increased in the Senate again, just as we did last year. I hope you people will keep up the good fight for decent housing for all our people, at prices they can afford to pay. I hope you will help me get that 5,000 limit on public housing knocked out of this year's appro- priation bill. And I want some help on some other appropriation bills too, while you are here — might just as well do a first-class job of lobby- ing while we are at it. It's all right to lobby the same as everybody else. I hope you will keep after the housing lobby, just as you al- ways have done. And I hope you will elect the kind of candidates to office this year that care enough about the people — and the peo- ple's welfare — so that they will support a housing program that will be all in the public interest. I want you to know this, however, that whether I am in office or out — and I will be out on the 20th of January — I am still going to continue this fight with everything I have got. I am going up and down this country as a private citizen, and I am going to tell them what the Government means, from precinct to President — and I am going 320 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 7 [121] to tell them in words of one syllable, so they will understand it. And I am going after these fellows — hammer and tongs — who have been trying to hamstring the Govern- ment, and who have been trying to keep us from doing our duty as a world power. You must understand that we have en- tered a new age, and a new era. We are the most powerful nation in the world. If we will just keep our heads and stay that way — if we do that — we can get a peace in this world that will last. If we do not, we can't. That's all there is to it. There have been certain things happening in this country that are right down the alley that Mr. Stalin wants us to go. Now let's stop it. Let's get our senses back, and go ahead and keep this country just what it ought to be: the greatest and the most pros- perous country in the world — and that is what it is now. It has been a pleasure for me to be here with you this evening. I almost missed the chance this year to make "whisdestop" speeches, so I took one out on you tonight. Thank you. note: The President spoke at 10:05 p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Raymond M. Foley, Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, who served as chairman of the banquet. 121 Statement by the President on General Ridgway's Korean Armistice Proposal. May 7, 1952 THE UNITED STATES fully approves and supports without qualification the pro- posal for reaching an armistice which Gen- eral Ridgway has offered to the Communist aggressors in Korea. Last July the United Nations forces had repulsed Communist aggression in Korea, had proved to the Communists that aggres- sion cannot pay, and had brought new hope for peace to free men around the world. The Soviet Union then indicated that Korean hostilities could be terminated by a military armistice. The United Nations Command in good faith and in a sincere de- sire to find a basis for a peaceful settlement began armistice talks with the Communists in Korea. After many trying months of negotiation, in which each issue has been dealt with indi- vidually, tentative agreement has been reached on all but three issues. It is now apparent that the three remaining issues cannot be resolved separately. The United Nations Command proposal offers a just and a real opportunity to resolve these three is- sues together and simultaneously. The three-point proposal is: 1. That there shall not be a forced repatri- ation of prisoners of war — as the Commu- nists have insisted. To agree to forced re- patriation would be unthinkable. It would be repugnant to the fundamental moral and humanitarian principles which underlie our action in Korea. To return these prisoners of war in our hands by force would result in misery and bloodshed to the eternal dis- honor of the United States and of the United Nations. We will not buy an armistice by turning over human beings for slaughter or slavery. The United Nations Command has ob- served the most extreme care in separating those prisoners who have said they would forcibly oppose return to Communist control. We have offered to submit to an impartial rescreening — after an armistice — of those persons we would hold in our custody. Nothing could be fairer. For the Com- munists to insist upon the forcible return to them of persons who wish to remain out of their control, is an amazing disclosure before the whole world of the operation of their system. 2. That the United Nations Command 321 [121] May 7 Public Papers of the Presidents will not insist on prohibiting reconstruction or rehabilitation of airfields. 3. That the neutral nations supervisory commission should comprise representatives of four countries; Poland and Czechoslo- vakia chosen by the Communists, Sweden and Switzerland chosen by the United Na- tions Command. The three parts of General Ridgway's pro- posal are all parts of a whole. They must be considered as an entity — not piecemeal. Our agreement is contingent upon accept- ance of the whole proposal. This is our position. The Communists thus far have indicated only a willingness to withdraw their proposal that the USSR be a member of the neutral inspection commission. This spurious issue was raised by them late in negotiations and its withdrawal is no real concession on their part. The patience and understanding shown by General Ridgway and the United Na- tions Command negotiators merit the highest praise. In spite of almost overwhelming provocation, they have made real progress in reaching agreement on many substantial terms for an armistice. General Ridgway's proposal offers a sound and sensible way to setde the remaining issues all at once. It will have compelling appeal to those sin- cerely desiring peace. 122 Letter to Henry H. Fowler on His Assumption of the Post of Administrator of the Defense Production Administration. May 7, 1952 Dear Mr. Fowler: I am pleased to know, from your con- versation with Acting Defense Mobilizer Steelman, of your willingness to assume the post of Administrator of the Defense Pro- duction Administration effective June i, 1952, succeeding Mr. Manly Fleischmann. This appointment is subject, of course, to confirmation by the Senate. It is my personal wish, and that of Acting Defense Mobilizer Steelman, that you occu- py the Defense Production Administration post simultaneously with the position you now occupy as Administrator of the Na- tional Production Authority in the Depart- ment of Commerce. I understand from Secretary Sawyer that he also concurs in this dual responsibility for you. While I appreciate that in taking on such a double responsibility your tasks of admin- istration will be greatly increased, it is my feeling that in so doing it will be possible to bring under your direct guidance all pro- duction phases of the mobilization program. Very significant progress has been made in the build-up phases of our production effort. In the completion of the further build-up tasks remaining, and in the operation phase ahead, a single production head now prom- ises to be the most effective means of over- all coordination of mobilization production. You will report directly to Acting Defense Mobilizer John R. Steelman, who agrees fully with my decision to have you occupy both the DPA and NPA Administratorships. This appointment carries with it my ap- preciation of the tireless efforts you have given to the mobilization effort, both as Deputy Administrator and Administrator of the National Production Authority. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: The appointment of Mr. Fowler was approved by the Senate on May 19, 1952. The text of Manly Fleischmann's letter of resigna- tion and the President's letter of acceptance was also released. Mr. Fleischmann served as Defense Pro- duction Administrator from July 1951 through May 1952. 322 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 8 [123] 123 The President's News Conference of May 8, 1952 the president. We can't start the confer- ence until the picture boys get through, so just be a little patient. [Photographers continued wording] [1.] Q. We might as well say "Happy Birthday" to you, Mr. President. the president. Thank you, Tony.1 [Ap- plause from the press] It's too bad you boys in the front row can't turn around and get in the picture too. [Laughter] It's a good thing we don't have a birthday at every press conference. Q. Are those new glasses you are wearing, Mr. President? the president. Every once in a while the astigmatic axis goes crazy and I have to have them made over, but the prescription is just the same. The frames are new. Q. Did you get any presents ? the president. Did I! — by the bushel! Yes indeed — I'll spend the rest of the month writing longhand notes thanking people. All right now, we are ready to start. [2.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if, since this is the day on which you declared the victory over Germany back in 1945 2 — I won- der if you have any thoughts today on the oudook for continued peace? the president. Well, since the German and the Japanese surrenders, our whole ef- fort has been to attain a lasting world peace. That is what we have been working for con- stantly and continually. When the cold war started in Greece and Turkey, and Berlin, and finally in Korea, we had to put forth every effort possible to prevent all the free world from coming under Communist control. Up to date, we have been successful in preventing a third world war. Conditions at the present time are very grave. We have been faced with a steel strike and an oil strike, and we are now faced with some difficulty in the copper in- dustry. And the attitude of the Congress towards the defense program and the mu- tual aid program is such as to imply that the necessity for those things is at an end. That, I think, is as good an indication of the situation as I can give you, because what has happened very recently is right down the alley of Mr. Stalin. Could we maintain our industry on an even keel, could we continue the mutual defense program to its logical conclusion and finish the economic program that is necessary to finish that mutual defense pro- gram, there would be no third world war. I am still hopeful that we can get all these things straightened out and carry our pro- gram to a conclusion, in which case we will have a lasting and universal peace. [3.] Q. Mr. President, on the economic front, would you say that the chief danger now is inflation or deflation? the president. There is always the chance of both, and we have to guard against both, and that is the reason we have these powers to meet the situation. So far we have prevented either one. [4.] Q. Mr. President, are you in a posi- tion yet to tell us how the Government hap- pened to offer the steel industry $4% a ton just prior to the president. The steel industry will not be discussed while it is before the Supreme Court.3 [5.] Q. Mr. President, last Friday the Chilean Government abrogated the agree- ment with the United States relating to cop- per, and I noticed that you mentioned copper in your original statement. I was wonder- ing what your views are on that. the president. Well, I can't express my views because it's a matter for negotiation 1 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 2 See 1945 volume, this series, Items 26, 27. 8 On June 2 the Supreme Court ruled the seizure of the steel plants unconstitutional. 323 [123] May 8 Public Papers of the Presidents between the President of Chile and myself, and I hope we will bring it to a successful conclusion. [6.] Q. Mr. President, I just wondered what are the prospects for settling the oil controversy? the president. We are working very hard to get it settled. Q. Is there consideration by the admin- istration to apply the antistrike injunction of the Taft-Hardey Act? the president. We have not yet consid- ered it because we haven't come to that point yet. We still hope for a settlement. [ 7. ] Q. Mr. President, you mentioned the mutual security bill and the actions of Con- gress. In view of the fact that both House and Senate committees have cut a billion dol- lars off the bill, can you be more explicit as to the effect the president. I will be extremely explicit when the bill reaches me.4 I can't comment on it now. , Q. Mr. President, referring to your first statement regarding the attitude of Con- gress toward the mutual security program, and so on, do you intend to insist that the platform of the Democratic Party contain adequate provisions to carry those out? the president. Well now, I can't write the Democratic platform, but I think it will be a good one when it comes out. If you will remember a certain speech on the 29th of March,5 I think the platform will be founded on that speech. [8.] Q. Mr. President, are there any new developments on the appointment of the Defense Mobilizer? the president. No. I will let you know just as soon as I am ready to make the ap- pointment.6 4 On June 20, 1952, the President approved the Mutual Security Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 141). 5 See Item 69. "Henry H. Fowler was sworn in as Director, Office of Defense Mobilization on September 8, 1952. See also Item 246. [9.] Q. Mr. President, on your 68th birthday, do you have any reflections on life in the Presidency? the president. Well, I have this reflection to make, that I have had a most happy and I guess as full a life as any man of this age. And I have tried my best, in my public career, to give the people everything I had to give. And I am as happy as a man can possibly be on his 68th birthday. And as I told you yesterday, I feel as if I were 28, and that's not bragging a bit, because I expect to put in 10 years doing as I please. For the last 30 years I have been in elec- tive public office, and I have been a servant of the people. Therefore, I had to adjust some of the things that I would like to do to the necessities of government. From now on, I won't have to do that.7 Q. Following that up, sir, one day we were discussing the possibility of a meet- ing with Stalin, and you said that after you left the White House that you would like to travel, and that you would like to go to Russia to see what the place looked like. I wonder if you had any plans like that? the president. It will depend. A situa- tion of that sort will depend altogether on the policy that will be pursued by the Presi- dent who follows me. I shall support the President in his foreign policy, as every cit- izen of the country should do, and I will not do anything to embarrass him. [10.] Q. Mr. President, a question on political philosophy on a local level. What do you think of the prospects of the two major parties combining on a single local candidate, in order to defeat a third party candidate arising, and do you think that there is danger there of one of the major parties losing its identity? the president. I am for a two-party sys- tem, and I will do everything I possibly can 7 Later that day, the White House released the text of the preceding paragraphs on the President's public life as material authorized for direct quota- tion. 324 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 8 [123] to make the two-party system work, and keep it strong; and that is the only way that our Government can successfully work un- der the Constitution. [n.] Q. Mr. President, did Congress- man Beckworth of Texas in effect discuss with you his race for the Senate in Texas? the president. No, he did not. There wasn't any reason why he should. Q. Well, maybe that answers my next question. There is a report going around that you have promised him a 7-year ap- pointment on the Interstate Commerce Commission ? the president. I make no promises of appointments in a political campaign. I have never done it, and I don't expect to start now — between now and the 20th of January — you don't overturn that rule. [12.] Q. Mr. President, I will tell you one thing that has us a little confused. The mayor out in Tombstone, Arizona — [laugh- ter']— I don't know whether you have seen the stories about Jack Williams 8 the president. Yes. Yes, I have a pic- ture. I have a picture of Jack's marker. Q. The mayor says no such person is buried out there, as I remember it. the president. Well, the committee went out and looked it up and found his grave, and the marker was somewhat disintegrated and they made a new one for him. It's there. I have a picture of it. It's always good publicity, you know, to charge the President with not being truthful. Maybe the mayor wanted a headline. [Laughter] Q. Could you tell us what kind of com- mittee— you say a committee went out the president. Of citizens of the city of Tombstone. [ 13.] Q. Mr. President, one last question 8 Mayor Wally C. Foster of Tombstone, Ariz., had denied that a grave marker such as the one the President described for Jack Williams (see Item 98 [2]) had ever been erected in Booth ill Cemetery prior to the President's first mention of the marker "about four years ago." on that copper thing. Have you been in contact with the President of Chile on this matter? the president. Not up to date. Q. Do you intend to see his Ambassa- dor the president. No, I can't talk about it. [ 14. ] Q. Mr. President, this 10-y ears-after period, are you going to write, or speak, or lecture or the president. I am going to have a good time, Pete,9 and do just as I damn please I [Laughter] Q. Can we quote that, Mr. President? the president. No. [Laughter] [15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to make a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee? We understand the president. I have been invited to make a Labor Day speech in Milwaukee.10 I have not accepted as yet. [16.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a frivolous question, and I intend it, sir? the president. That's all right. Q. Bertrand Russell, the British philoso- pher, said in an interview today that no American politician could hold office if the facts of his private life were known; and also he said that the United States was be- coming a matriarchy, and he suggested that the men here adopt a "down with women" slogan. Any comment, sir? [Laughter] the president. Well, there's only one part of that that I would like to answer, that there is no American public official can hold office unless his private life is out on the clothesline for everybody to see. [17.] Q. Mr. President, would you com- ment on this reported attempt by Senator McFarland and others to get a compromise over the FEPC question? the president. I know nothing about it. I have stated my position on FEPC and it hasn't changed one bit. I am for the Dem- 9 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 10 See Item 241. 325 [123] May 8 Public Papers of the Presidents ocratic platform, and for the Republican platform on the same question. [Laughter] [18.] Q. Mr. President, did the Federal Reserve Board consult you about removing the installment credit? the president. Yes, they did. Q. They did? the president. Yes, they did. Q. Now they have taken off Regulation W, what about Regulation X? n the president. I haven't discussed that with them at all. Regulation W was the only one that was discussed. And the sit- uation is one that should be flexible to meet the situation as it comes up. I was asked about inflation and deflation over here a while ago, and the action of the Federal Re- serve Board is right in line with the way it should be done. Now I hope that won't en- courage Congress to take the power of the Board to act away. Q. You want that continuing power? the president. I want that continuing power to meet the situation as it comes along. Q. Now there has been a charge that the administration and the Federal Reserve Board are playing politics with economics, by keeping up the the president. Not a word of truth in it. There's not a word of truth in it. A com- plete survey of the situation was made, and the decision of the Board was made on its merits. , Q. That was the Federal Reserve? the president. Of course. They always "Regulation W, for the control of consumer credit, was originally issued by the Board of Gov- ernors of the Federal Reserve System in 1941 (32 A CFR, 1 951 revision, Chapter XV), and became in- operative after June 30, 1949. It was reactivated by the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended, and was suspended on May 7, 1952. Regulation X, for the control of real estate credit, was issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as amended (32A CFR, 1951 revision, Chapter XV), and was suspended on September 16, 1952. charge wrongdoing for whatever you do, when it's in the public interest. Q. The charge was made the president. That's the charge. It's just a charge to discredit the fact that we are trying to keep the economy on an even keel. And we have done it. It hurts some people, but it's the right thing to do. Q. Can you make any — not a forecast but a — take a view of what is going to happen during next year? Will it be kept on an even keel? the president. If the proper legislation passes, it will be. Q. And one of those things is a continu- ance of the Defense Production Act? the president. That's correct. [19.] Q. I would like to ask a political question. the president. All right. I was waiting for a political question. I like to answer them. [Laughter] Q. You have said that you are in favor of a free and open convention in Chicago. You have also said that you have the same right as any other Democrat to express a choice. I just wonder if there is any conflict there, or whether it is possible that you may come out for somebody? the president. I have no such intention at the present time, but the President, just because he is President of the United States, shouldn't be gagged when it comes to a choice of men running for office. And I have never been gagged. I have always ex- pressed my opinion as to who I am for, and why I am for him. I am not ready to do that yet. Q. Well, Mr. President, would you make your feelings known before the Democratic convention? the president. Let's let the river take its course. I will make up my mind when the proper time comes. You know, I am a pretty good judge of political approaches, much to the regret of some people in 1948. [Laughter] 326 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 12 [124] [20.] Q. Mr. President, have you any- thing to add to your statement on Korea 12 yesterday? the president. No comment on the Ko- rean situation. My statement and General Ridgway's 13 covered the situation, and there shouldn't be talk about it in the press now. [21.] Q. Mr. President, accepting your statement that you are a pretty good judge on political affairs, as they develop, would you be good enough to analyze the situation of the Democratic Party for us right now? We are a little confused. [Laughter] the president. No, I don't think if I would analyze it you would quite under- stand it, so I will not make the attempt. [22.] Q. Mr. President, on the question of your travel abroad after you retire, you said that you would not do anything to em- 13 See Item 121. 13 The statement issued by Gen. Matthew B. Ridg- way, United Nations Commander in Korea and Commander in Chief of the Far East Command, is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 26, p. 786). barrass the next President. Could you say if you have the desire or wish to travel, pro- vided it conforms with the President's wishes then, and, if so, where? the president. No, I wouldn't say it in that way. I would say, of course, that I do have a desire to cover some parts of the earth that I have never seen, but I would not want to do anything on that trip that would in any way embarrass the administration or the President who follows me in office, no matter who he is. Q. Could you tell us where you would like to go? the president. No. I don't want to name any countries because you will just cause me trouble. They will be over here with delegations, and everything else, to get me there. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president: You're welcome. note: President Truman's three hundred and third news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 10:35 a-m« on Thursday, May 8, 1952. 124 Letter to Committee Chairmen Urging Action on Bills To Encourage Voting by Servicemen. May 12, 1952 Dear : I am attaching for the information of your Committee copies of a letter which I wrote to Secretary of Defense Lovett, and his reply thereto, on the subject of voting by service- men. The Secretary of Defense indicates in his letter of April 30, 1952, that "unfortu- nately, the majority of the States whose laws do not comply with the recommendations of the present Federal Voting Law, do not con- vene their legislatures during 1952. There- fore, the prospect for State action this year does not appear to be optimistic.,, Under these circumstances, it is even more impor- tant that the Congress take early action to enable hundreds of thousands of servicemen to vote this year. I hope that your Committee will give early consideration to S. 3061 (H.R. 7571), the servicemen's voting bill, which is designed to enable those who are defending our form of Government with their lives to exercise one of the basic rights of American citi- zens— the right to vote. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Carl Hayden, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and to the Honorable Thomas B. Stanley, Chair- man of the House Committee on House Adminis- tration. For the President's letter to Secretary of Defense Robert A. Lovett see Item 96. Secretary Lovett's reply, dated April 30, 1952, was released May 12 together with the text of the President's letter to the Committee Chairman. See also Item 68. 327 [125] May 14 Public Papers of the Presidents 125 Remarks at a Dinner for the Members of Congress Given by the Civil Air Patrol. May 14, 1952 General Spaatz, Secretary Finletter, Mr. Spea\er, distinguished guests: I certainly appreciate the invitation of the Civil Air Patrol to come out here to its con- gressional dinner. I often say that I spent the happiest 10 years of my life in the Sen- ate, and I am always glad to go to a party where I get a chance to see some of my friends from the Congress, both from the House and the Senate. You would be surprised how lonesome it gets at the White House sometimes. You think that's funny. Of course, it wasn't lonesome there this afternoon. Mrs. Tru- man and I shook hands with 1,283 guests this afternoon. We have been doing that about every other day for some time. But along in June she will go home, and Mar- garet will go on the road, in all probability, and I will have to sit there and wonder what in hell Congress is going to do to the defense program. Now, I want to congratulate the Civil Air Patrol on the approach it is making to Con- gress by having this dinner. I don't know just what you want out of Congress, but I will say to you you are going at it the right way. In fact, I would like to make a deal with you. I would like to team up with you. I will help you get what you want from the Congress — although I haven't got very much influence with them these days — if you will help me get what I want. You know, I have a little trouble in that regard, sometimes. I have got some wonderful friends in the Congress who understand what the program is all about and who fight valiantly for it. But, you know, it is a ter- rific thing to get a Congress to work in a presidential election year. Nobody knows that better than I do. Take the defense appropriation, for in- stance. Look what the House and the Sen- ate Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee have done to the economic European rearmament appropria- tion. Look what they have done to the De- fense budget. That budget was an honest budget if there ever was one. We are winning the cold war, and I fear very much that if the Congress continues to follow the attitude that it has on these immensely important appropriation bills, we may lose it, and then — and then these de- fense appropriations will look like a drop in the bucket. I hope that won't happen. I think the Civil Air Patrol is doing such a wonderful job that it deserves the support of the Congress. Now I am lobbying for you with all these Congressmen and Senators. You are providing an efficient search and rescue service for the Nation. You repre- sent the air arm of civil defense, and you have a splendid program for training avia- tion cadets. Now, people do not appreciate exactly the necessity and the importance of civil defense. It is one of the most important branches of our defense program, because the men in the field who do the fighting can't do that fight- ing if the production machine behind them should become destroyed. And you are helping us to protect that production machine. I know that you put a lot of your own money into this business, and you render a real public service, at your own expense. You don't know how much I appreciate that, because most everybody who comes to see me wants something out of the Treasury. I am especially pleased with your interest in civil defense. You know how important a real civil defense program is, and I hope you will try to impress that on other peo- ple— just as I told you awhile ago. I am also very much interested in the work the Civil Air Patrol is doing to interest young people in aviation. If we are going to keep up with our responsibilities in the 328 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 14 [125] world, we must have a country that is air- minded. We must have more and more young people all the time who go into the business of flying. Consequently, I have been disturbed at the fact that there seems to be less interest in learning to fly during the last few years. Fewer permits are being issued to student pilots, and fewer licenses to private pilots. That is not good. I think one of the difficulties may be that a lot of the glamor has gone from flying. The kids that are growing up today have airplanes all around them, and they take them as a matter of course. They think it's just as natural for man to fly as it is for birds to fly, for bees to fly, and for men to walk. They never will be able to appreciate the excitement and the wonder that an airplane creates in those of us who grew up when there was no such thing. All we heard about when I was a boy was that old Greek mythology story about the fellow who made himself some wings out of eagle's feathers and flew close to the sun and the wax melted his wings and he killed himself. And we have heard about Darius Green and his flying machine but they didn't believe there would ever be a flying machine. Now I have flown thousands and thou- sands of miles, and I still don't believe it can be done. The kids naturally just take it for granted. They just don't realize what a wonderful thing it was when the Wright brothers suc- ceeded in making that flight at Kitty Hawk. I remember the first time I ever saw a pic- ture of the Wright brothers' plane in flight, just a few years after the Kitty Hawk flight, in one of these old nickelodeons, where you paid a nickel to see a picture. I would like to see you get in one for a nickel now. They had a picture of one of the Wright brothers flying this biplane. Then a year or two after that I actually saw the plane, and as I said awhile ago, I just didn't be- lieve it, but there it was. My first flight is something I will never forget, either. After the First World War was over, I was a field artillery officer, and some smart person up at the top issued an order that field artillery officers, captains, and lieutenants — and I was a captain in com- mand of a battery — would go up with the pilots and learn how to observe. Well, I went back as ordered, and got in the plane with one of those pilots. He didn't want to take me up any worse than I wanted to go up. It was in one of those old Jennies, and he gave the darn thing the barrel roll and Immelmann turn and loop the loop and everything else. And I want to say to you that I left the last three meals all over France. It was a long, long time before I got over that experience. I had another first-time experience that I think may have been the first time. When I got back home, I got into politics. That has been just 30 years ago. Next Novem- ber I will have been in public elective office 30 years. This was the first time I ever ran for elective office. And I went out to a little airfield that had a couple of runways about a hundred feet long, and got a fellow who had a two-seater, an old single-wing plane. And he put me in the front seat and he got in the back seat, and I took a double arm- load of handbills and flew all over the county and the towns in the county and dropped those handbills, on one side of the plane and on the other side. And when that fellow went to land he had to land /n a pasture in a little town called Oak Grove, where I was going to make a speech. He just missed a barbed wire fence by that much. If that had happened, I wouldn't be in politics today. But that was an interesting experience. I really think that is one of the first times that a plane was ever used in a campaign. And by the way, I don't know whether it was the plane or not, but I won! We are making a great deal of progress in the science of aviation now. In fact, I think we are at the door of the greatest age in history in everything. If we can prevent a third world war — and I have been trying 7 years to prevent that third world war, and I hope we will 329 [125] May 14 Public Papers of the Presidents be successful at it — the young people today, I think, will see a fantastic age, an age that our fathers and grandfathers dreamed about, but never thought would happen. I wonder if I could read you a little some- thing here that I have been carrying around for nearly 30 years. It is almost worn out. This was written in 1842 by a gentleman named Alfred Tennyson. And here is the way it goes — this is an extract from it: "For I dipt into the future, as far as human eye could see. Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be; "Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales; "Heard the heavens fill with shouting, and there rain'd a ghastly dew" — atomic bombs "From the nations' airy navies grappling in the central blue; "Far along the world-wide whisper of the south-wind rushing warm, JVith the standards of the peoples plunging thro' the thunderstorm; "Till the wardrum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furled. In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world." Now, that was written in 1842 by Alfred Tennyson. That is a prophecy of the age in which we live now. And we are faced with a much greater age than the one that Tenny- son dreamed about. If we will just keep our feet on the ground and our heads level, I am sure that this dis- covery of the way to break the atom will bring not only fantastic things for us to use, but it will be used for peaceful purposes — just as all the other destructive articles that have been invented have been used for that purpose. I want to live to see that age, and that is the reason I am quitting as President. I want to live that long. Planes are getting bigger, and faster, and safer. I think there is no doubt that the airplane as a means of transportation is here to stay and is just on the verge of more and more improvement. And I am sure that flying has not really lost its glamor. I know you people here tonight will testify to that — or you wouldn't be here. What you have to do is to give our young people a chance to find out what flying really is. The spirit of adventure is not dead in this great country of ours. I wish — I wish all of you could be with me when I read the citations for Medals of Honor. I, of course, on account of the fact that I was the President at the end of the Second World War, and have been Presi- dent during the unpleasantness in Korea, I have hung more Medals of Honor around the necks of our young men than any other President. All the Presidents put together haven't presented as many as I have. And when you read those citations, it makes you the proudest person in the world. It shows what the fiber of this country is made of. I asked one of the great moving picture men why he didn't take some of these won- derful citations and show the people just exactly what happened with these young men. "Why," he said, "I can't do it be- cause nobody would believe it. It's just beyond belief." And it is. There is no ques- tion about it being beyond belief. The first time I ever had a meeting for that purpose, there was a young man in a wheelchair, with both his legs off, all the way up — the nicest-looking young fellow you ever saw. And I said, "Young man, you have made a tremendous sacrifice for your country." He said, "Mr. President, I didn't have but one life to give for my coun- try, and it can have it yet if it wants it." 330 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 15 [126] I hung a Medal around the neck of a great big captain, six-foot two or three, and weighed a couple of hundred pounds. He had captured 160 Germans in a village in the drive that broke up the Bulge. And when he ran out of hand grenades he threw rocks at the houses, and the Germans came out and surrendered because they thought they were hand grenades. And I said to him, as I had to stand on tip- toe to fix the Medal around his neck, I said, "I don't want you throwing any rocks at me." "Oh," he said, "Mr. President, I wouldn't think about doing that." Well now, when our boys and girls have a chance to find out what an exciting and use- ful business aviation really is, they will be eager to take part in it. That is why the work of the Civil Air Patrol with its cadets is so important. That is why I feel sure that the Congress and other agencies of the Government will assist you in every way possible. Now I hope you will keep up your good work, and keep on making your contribu- tion to the country's welfare. We need you. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be out here urging you to go on with it. Please go on with it, and do every- thing you possibly can — back door, front door, and any other way you can get to the Congress, to get what you want. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 9:15 p.m. at the Shoreham Hotel in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Gen. Carl A. Spaatz, USAF, Chairman of the National Executive Board of the Civil Air Patrol, Thomas K. Finletter, Secretary of the Air Force, and Sam Ray burn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 126 Address at the Sixth Annual Honor Awards Program of the Department of Agriculture. May 15, 1952 Mr. Secretary, Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: We are gathered here to honor some fine Americans — men and women who are today receiving special recognition for their out- standing work in public service. These men and women come from all parts of the country. They do many differ- ent sorts of jobs. But they all have one thing in common. They are Federal em- ployees— they are civil servants — they are working for the public good. And the extra effort they have put into their jobs is their gift to us, the American people. They are not finding ways to kill people. They work to make people live longer. They work to make people able to have more to eat, and more to wear. I am proud of these fine men and women. I am proud of the whole civil service they belong to and represent so well. There's no better group of people in the country. And this is a very good time to remember that. Any time a Government employee does something wrong, it makes headlines. It makes headlines for the simple reason that the objective of 87 percent of the headline makers is to discredit the administration. But, when Government employees do some- thing right — as they are doing all the time — it's such a commonplace thing the people never hear about it. I wish all Americans could be here with us to see this evidence of good government. I wish they could all read the little booklet — and there it is, that's the little booklet, I wish you would all read it — Secretary Bran- nan gave me, the one that tells what each of these awards is being given for. That would make everyone as happy and proud as I am. All down the line, behind each one of the awards presented here today, is the same story — a story of outstanding work, the finest kind of service to the public. And right here I want to say that that sort of service is not confined entirely to the De- 331 [126] May 15 Public Papers of the Presidents partment of Agriculture. You will find it in every department of the Government — as I have said before. No one can read these stories without com- ing to understand that there is something very special about public service which has made these men and women put forth their best efforts — made them put everything they have into their jobs. They are thinking about the welfare of the United States of America. They are not thinking about the pay they get, because the pay they get in rela- tionship to what they do is a mere stipend. The great thing about Government work is that it offers something more than just a way to make a living. It offers the chance to serve the public purpose, instead of a pri- vate purpose — the chance to help the coun- try, and to be a part of something bigger than any private undertaking. It is no wonder to me that here at the Department of Agriculture you have so many honors to give today. For the goals of your work are tremendously exciting. The common purpose of your programs is as in- spiring as anything in the whole Govern- ment. For nearly 20 years now, this Government has been working to rebuild American agri- culture as a prosperous, productive, efficient part of our economy — and a good and satis- fying way of life for the people on the land. We have made up our minds that this country shall have abundant production of food and fiber to support our growing popu- lation and our great responsibilities as leader of the whole free world. We have made up our minds, too, that the farmers of this coun- try— the people who produce these things for us — shall share fully and completely in the benefits of modern living. We don't want a set of peasants in this country. We want landowners and people who can hold their heads up and talk to the bankers and industrialists as equals and not as inferiors. We have set ourselves a goal of parity be- tween farm living and city living. For we know that there is more to productive agri- culture than tools and soil and seed. The most important part of the whole picture is the people on the farm. Everything we do — all the work of this Department — comes right back to helping people, helping the farmers of this country and their families — and their neighbors in the market towns — the backbone of our whole free society. And I am one of them, I want you to know that. As soon as I quit being Presi- dent, I am going back to the farm. That's the reason I can talk like this. There is a real sense of mission behind you in this Department — a real, tangible feel- ing of working for the common good. In a way — a very commonsense way — you have been engaged in a great crusade all these years. Many of you came here 20 years ago just to be a part of that crusade and to make a contribution to it. I know you still re- member how it was started and why it got started. You remember that we had a terrible ex- perience on our farms in the years before 1933. Things were bad enough for farmers in the twenties. And then the Great De- pression came along and put the finishing touches on the farmers. The farmers were knocked out econom- ically, all across the country. Market outlets, and prices for their crops collapsed. Farm families almost everywhere were living in real poverty. We had plenty of good land and hard working people. We had the basic resources all right — but we couldn't put them to work on a paying basis. It is pathetic when you think about what happened. In desperation for cash crops, farmers plowed up land that should not have been touched. Dust storms black- ened the sky as Nature's answer to this abuse of the soil. All over the country, the story was the same. The Nation's precious topsoil was eroding — blowing away and washing out to sea — ruining agriculture's basic source of strength. Farm incomes were not sufficient to finance badly needed soil conservation. 332 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 15 [126] Economic freedom became a mockery without economic strength. And political freedoms were endangered by rebellions that broke out in defiance of law and order. Des- perate farmers turned to force and violence to resist the injustice of mortgage foreclo- sures which would have wiped away their life savings. And those rebellions were not in the South, they were in Wisconsin and Iowa and Minnesota and north Missouri. It was a terrible time. But fortunately — very fortunately — most Americans learned something from it. Most of us learned that it takes more than a wealth of resources, and more than an industrious people, to insure progress and prosperity for our country. We found out that there had to be com- monsense management of our national af- fairs in the interests of all the people. We found out there had to be a cooperative effort and wise legislation to correct the deficiencies of our economic system, to en- hance the security of all our people, and to create the conditions necessary for progress and prosperity for the Nation as a whole. Now right here I want to tell you that that situation has expanded. We have become the most powerful and important free na- tion in the world, and our interests now are not only nationwide for 48 States, they are worldwide for both hemispheres, from one end of the world to the other, and we have got to assume that responsibility and carry it through. And if we don't, disaster faces us. We found out these things were needed if we were to have any order in our society and make our freedoms and resources really work for us. That much we had learned by 1933. And after that, we found out another thing. We found out that the job could be done — in agriculture and in every other aspect of our national life. We have been demonstrating that fact for 20 years. Look what has been accomplished on the farm. Today, American agriculture is highly productive and highly efficient. It is pro- ducing abundantly for the defense effort. It is rebuilding strength in the land for the use of future generations. And it is help- ing to give our people a higher standard of living than they have ever known before. And that means the whole population, not just one segment of it. All of you know the policies and programs that have helped to bring this about: Price support programs have brought stability to farm prices; and at the same time they have brought adequate supplies to con- sumer markets. Soil conservation programs have built up the land. Research projects have helped farmers to boost production and get food to market at lower cost. Rural electrification has brought great ef- ficiencies in farm operations, and it has turned farmhouses into homes. Farm credit and housing loans have helped millions of farmers to buy and improve their lands and their homes. These and other programs — programs your Department has carried out so well — have enabled the farmers of America to build the strong agricultural economy we know today. In this way, we have demon- strated that by positive action we can use the powers of our Government to make our resources and our freedoms work for every- body's benefit. In these 20 years, we have brought about a real revolution — a peaceful revolution — in American agriculture. Some people have never approved of what we set out to do — and what we have been doing. They have fought against us every step of the way. They are still at it today. Their favorite cry has been "socialism," "regimentation," Government "control" and "domination" of the farmer. Actually, what we have been doing is the very opposite of these things. We have been getting the means of production back into the hands of the individual free enterprisers. Now, listen to this. In 1932, less than 58 percent of the Nation's farms were owned by the people who operated them. Today, 333 [126] May 15 Public Papers of the Presidents after 20 years of what the mossbacks — and I can name them by name, if you want me to — call "socialism," that figure has gone up to 75 percent — 75 percent of the farmers in this country own their farms. I read an edi- torial the other day that said part of Tru- manism was socialism in the way they treated farmers. Well, that is Trumanism, just what I am talking to you about today. There are 250,000 more farmers who own their own farms today than there were in 1932. That doesn't sound like regimenta- tion or socialism to me. It sounds like real free enterprise. You know, I know farmers. There is no segment of the population that is more opposed to being regimented than are the farmers. I am one, and I know exacdy what I am talking about. So far as I know, there is nothing in the free enterprise sys- tem that requires half the Nation's farms to be owned by absentee landlords. All this talk about socialism is just plain bunk and hokum. What we have actually been working for is to extend and strengthen private farm ownership. And we have been trying to make it possible for all farm fam- ilies— whether they own their farms or not — to grow good crops and sell them for decent prices. We have been trying to make sure that we will have a strong agriculture as a part of a strong economy, and a good farm living as a part of a good life for all Americans. That has been our goal for 20 years. That has been the motive power and the inspira- tion behind your fine work in the Depart- ment of Agriculture. And you know, in 1948 there was a lot of talk about what we had done to the country and what we proposed to do. And I took a little trip of 31,700 miles, and I made 536 speeches, and I talked to 7 million people, and shook hands with about a million, and talked to 25 million more on the radio. And when the people found out what the facts were, you know what happened in 1948. The same thing is going to happen in 1952, although I won't be the candidate. But I will get out and do the same thing for who- ever is the candidate for President on the platform I am talking about, as I did for my- self in 1948. It is still the goal — still the inspiration — still the reason so many men and women are giving their best efforts to the public service in our agricultural programs. We must keep it that way. I hope the time will never come when the good fight, the good spirit, the sense of real public pur- pose and real achievement goes out of this great Department. For there is still a lot to do. There are plenty of problems to be solved — plenty of improvements still to be made. It's a big job — and a great challenge. I know that you will meet this challenge in the same spirit and with the same devo- tion that has marked the work of the men and women we honor here today. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 10:37 a.m. at the Sylvan Theatre on the Washington Monument grounds. In his opening words he referred to Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, and Knox T. Hutchinson, Assistant Secretary of Agricul- ture, who was chairman of the occasion. 127 The President's News Conference of May 15, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I have no special announcements to make this morning, except that I would like to tell you that I have a visitor today who is my Lieutenant Governor of Missouri, Gov- ernor Jim Blair 1 — a fine-looking fellow, too. [Laughter] I wouldn't advise you to get into any trouble with him, either. 1 James T. Blair, Jr., Lieutenant Governor of Missouri. 334 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 15 [127] Q. Mr. President, with no thought of getting in any trouble with Jim Blair, there have been several stories about your role at the convention. Now, do you have any idea of having any status as a delegate or alternate from Missouri? the president. Well, it has been cus- tomary for me to be a delegate from Mis- souri, but I don't know whether I will be this year or not. Anyway, I shall not attend the convention until after the candidate for President is elected — if I attend at all. I told you once before, I think it was at the editors press conference, that I didn't think it would be the proper thing for me to go to the convention, and make it appear that I was trying to dominate it— which I don't want to do. Q. Mr. President, do I understand that you do plan to go to the convention, but after the balloting? the president. If I go at all, it will be after the balloting. Q. You are not yet sure in your mind, sir? the president. No. I haven't made any definite plans on the subject at all, except that I know I am not going to the conven- tion until after the President and Vice Pres- ident have been nominated. Q. Mr. President, I didn't quite under- stand what you said about delegate or alternate the president. Oh, I am generally a dele- gate from Missouri — have been ever since I went to the United States Senate. I am usually always a delegate. Q. Also the leader of the party? the president. That comes naturally with the office. [Laughter] Q. Then you would — if the State conven- tion named you as a delegate, you would ac- cept the honor? the president. Why certainly I would. I would feel that it was a high honor if they did it. Q. If they named you as a delegate then you would go, sir, wouldn't you? the president. How's that? Q. If they named you a delegate, would you go? the president. No. The alternate would have to do my job. Q. Oh— I see. Q. Mr. President, I have forgotten — were you a delegate in 1948? the president. I think I was. I don't re- member for sure, but I think I was. You would have to look it up, I can't remember. Q. Mr. President, if you were a delegate, have you made up your mind how you would vote? the president. No, I haven't. I would have to have a little more information on the subject. I know what kind of a plat- form I would vote for, but I have not yet decided on which candidate I would vote for. I think the Vice President said the other day he was sort of like Josh Billings, he was going to be nice to all of them, for you never could tell what might happen. Josh, you know, put out advice to his friends that it was always well to be nice to your poor relations, because they might suddenly become rich some day, and it would be hard to explain? [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, to clear up one — if you should go, after the balloting for the ticket, what would be your purpose in going, sir, to make a speech? the president. Yes, to make a Democratic speech — start off a whistlestop program. [2.] Q. Mr. President, a week ago you saw the Chilean Ambassador for half an hour on the copper problem in Chile. Could you tell us something about that conversation? the president. I can't comment on that for the matter is under negotiation, and it wouldn't be well for me to comment on it now. [3.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to Alabama as Senator Hill and some others have asked you to do, to dedicate that TVA steamplant? the president. I wrote to the — I think 335 [127] May 15 Public Papers of the Presidents Congressman Jones,2 who sent me the first invitation, and told him I didn't think it would be possible for me to get there. Then Senator Hill came in and told me that he thought I certainly ought to go, and I have the matter under consideration. I doubt very much whether I will be able to get there. [4.] Q. Mr. President, did I understand you to say just now that you would make a Democratic speech starting off a whistle- stop campaign ? the president. That's right. I am going to work for the nominee just as hard as I would work for myself. Q. Mr. President, do you think you will go to as many places as you did last time? the president. I doubt that. I don't think I can get to as many places because I started in June that time. Q. Mr. President, are you going to start right after the convention this time? the president. I am going to do whatever the national Democratic chairman wants me to do. I am that kind of a Democrat. Q. Mr. President, in that connection — I have heard you say you plan to do that — there is some suggestion that the committee might not have enough money to [Laughter] the president. Well, I have never seen the time when the committee did have enough money. There were times in 1948 when we couldn't get the train out of the station — but we went on. [Laughter] [5.] Q. Mr. President, I imagine you are familiar with the Utah flood situation? I was wondering if there is anything that can be done by the Federal Government to help the people there? the president. I was talking to one of your good citizens awhile ago on that thing. I didn't know about it until today. And I have received no word from the Governor or anybody else in control out there, as to whether there is a disaster situation or not, so I can't take any action until I know more about the facts. I will treat Utah and the flood situation just as we would treat Missouri. [6.] Q. Mr. President, I have got to get this Missouri situation straight. Are there any plans in Missouri to make you a delegate? the president. I don't know. I don't know. The best way to find out about that would be to ask some Missourian about it. [Laughter] Q. According to them, they have no plans. the president. I don't know anything about it. It's nice to talk about, though. [Laughter] [7.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Williams of Delaware introduced a bill this week to forbid in the future the deduction from in- come tax returns of bad debt loans to politi- cal parties. What do you think about such a bill? the president. I didn't know it had ever been done. That's news to me. [8.] Q. Mr. President— I don't want to be asking all the questions — it seems to me that you are assuming that the Democratic nominee for President will be satisfactory to you ? the president. The Democratic nominee for President will be satisfactory to me. I will abide by the actions of the convention. Q. Mr. President, Mr. Harriman 3 seems to be the only Democratic candidate who seem to have come all-out for the Fair Deal. Does that give him any different standing now with you ? the president. I think very highly of Mr. Harriman. I think he is perfectly capable of making a good President, and if he is nominated I will go all-out for him. Q. Mr. President, would you care to say in the same breath, then, what you think of Senator Russell ? the president. Same thing exactly. I think very highly of Senator Russell, and always have. I made that statement here 2 Representative Robert E. Jones, Jr., of Alabama. 3W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. 336 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 15 [127] three times. This just reiterates it. I can say the same thing for all the candidates that are in the field. [9.] Q. Mr. President, on this political loan question, I don't like to belabor it, but it was brought out that several individuals had contributed or had loaned the Demo- cratic Party in New York State more than $410,000; and when they were unable to get full repayment, they wrote them off as bad debts on their income tax returns. The Internal Revenue Bureau then said that this was established practice as long as it could be established that these were loans. There is now, I understand, some sentiment in Con- gress for plugging the election laws to forbid such practice in the future. the president. I don't know anything about it. I haven't looked into it. This is all news to me. I didn't read about it at all. I never saw anything about it in the paper. And I know nothing about the ruling of the Internal Revenue, so I can't give you an answer. [10.] Q. Mr. President, do you regard this country as being at war? the president. This country is trying to assist the United Nations in preventing aggression, just as it did in Greece and Turkey, and as it did in Berlin, and in several other instances. Q. This all goes to the Supreme Court argument, Mr. President. Are we under war conditions ? the president. I don't think I ought to make any direct comment on the arguments that are made to the Supreme Court until we have heard from the Court; and then I will give you plenty of comment. [11.] Q. I would like to ask you one more question. You issued a statement 4 — I have forgotten — a week or so ago, with respect to the Korean negotiations. I won- der if there has been any result from that statement, or negotiations broken off the president. The negotiations are still going on. *See Item 121. Q. Is there any further light you can throw on the situation? the president. No, I can't comment on the situation at the present time. Q. Mr. President the president. Whenever I can com- ment on it, I will give you the facts as I know them. What is it, Smitty? 5 [12.] Q. I wonder if you could comment on the situation at the Koje prison, and the shift in command 6 the president. That is in the hands of the military, and they are handling it, and I have no comment to make on it. [13.] Q. Did you read Mr. Baruch's statement at the War College? 7 Any com- ment on it? the president. No, I didn't read it I have no comment on it. I didn't even read it. [14.] Q. Mr. President, you saw the Chancellor of Austria 8 twice yesterday, once at lunch and once in your office. Can you comment on your talks with him? the president. He came to the office to pay his respects to the President of the United States, as all these men do when they are traveling in the country. Then I went to lunch with him, and had a very pleasant visit with him — discussed the Aus- trian situation from one end to the other. I have no comment to make on the conver- sation, however. [15.] Q. Mr. President, you have already taken yourself out of the presidential race, 5Merriman Smith of the United Press Associa- tions. 6 The Communist prisoners of war on Koje Island had captured the camp commander, Brig. Gen. Fran- cis T. Dodd, and had held him captive for 78 hours, releasing him on May 10. On May 15, Brig. Gen. Haydon L. Boatner was appointed to succeed Brig. Gen. Charles F. Colson, who had taken over the command after General Dodd was captured and had made concessions to the prisoners in order to obtain General Dodd's release. 7 On May 14 Bernard M. Baruch spoke on economic policy at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. 8 Leopold Figl. 337 [127] May 15 Public Papers of the Presidents and the senatorial race for Missouri. How about the Vice Presidency, sir ? [Laughter] the president. I have no ambitions at the present time, politically or otherwise. As I told you, I am going to spend some time doing as I please, to see how it feels. I don't know how long that will last. [16.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what your own ideas of your whisdestop campaigning this year may be? the president. No, I can't. They will have to be oudined by the Democratic com- mittee, and as I say, I shall follow the direc- tions of the chairman and the executive committee of the Democratic committee after the nominations are over. I will do everything I can to help elect the ticket. Q. Mr. President, who is going to carry your ideas on the platform to the conven- tion? the president. I don't understand what you mean? Q. Well, you said that you are not going up there to take part but you have also said that you are going to see what is in the plat- form. the president. Well, I think that the Democratic platform will be in line with the Democratic platform of 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948. I don't think there will be any difficulty about the Democrats writing a platform if the people will vote for it. They always have. [ Laugh ter ] [17.] Q. Mr. President, Governor Dewey 9 last Sunday said that towards the end of the 1948 campaign the Government rigged some farm prices. Any comment on that? the president. Not a word of truth in that, and he knows it. That's just a politi- cal statement. [Laughter] [18.] Q. Mr. President, if I may tap your knowledge of history, there have been instances where the President in office has campaigned for the nominee. Haven't there been such cases 8 Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. the president. There have been instances where the President has made speeches for the nominee. I think President Wilson made a speech for Governor Cox from his sickbed, when the Governor was nominated in 1920. And I think you can go back and find several in- stances where that has taken place. I think you will find that President Hayes helped campaign for President Garfield. And it is a remarkable story about the nomina- tion of Garfield. If you have got time to listen to it, I will tell it to you. Q. I would like to hear it. the president. James G. Blaine — the Plumed Knight — was the favorite. He went to the convention and had 297 votes, I think. And Roscoe Conkling who didn't like Blaine, persuaded General Grant to let Conk- ling nominate him for President. Grant got 303 ballots on the first ballot, I think, and that went on for some time. And during the convention James Garfield nominated some gentleman — I don't remember who it was he nominated, but he made the most wonder- ful speech that was made at that conven- tion. And I am informed that after sev- eral ballots, President Hayes called the chairman of the convention and asked him why they didn't nominate Garfield, that he had made the best speech that had been made there. He wasn't even a candidate. Now, that is a remarkable performance. Which goes to show that a President has a litde influence with his party convention, if he wants to use it. [Laughter] Q. But you won't be there the president. You don't have to be there. President Hayes wasn't there. Q. Then how did he know it was such a good speech ? the president. Because President Hayes said it was. He said it was the best speech that was made at the convention. That's all I know about it. Just what I read. Q. You mean he read it — you mean he read it? the president. No, I haven't read the 338 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 16 [128] speech, but I am telling you what happened. Q. I mean President Hayes the president. Oh yes, certainly he had. Oh yes, certainly he had. Q. James Garfield nominated John Sher- man of Ohio. the president. Was that who it was? I had forgotten who it was he nominated. Q. Mr. President, does that story about what happened to a man that made a speech have anything to do with your decision not to speak until after the nominee — [laughter] the president. You remember William Jennings Bryan in 1896 — the real dark horse. We had a candidate from Missouri we thought we were going to get nominated — "Silver Dick" Bland,10 if you remember, and he didn't even get a handful of ballots on 10 Richard Parks Bland, Representative from Mis- souri from 1873 to J895 and from 1897 to 1899. the first vote. Bryan just took the conven- tion by storm by making one speech. I don't think I could do that. I wouldn't even try to do that. But then, I am not going to take any chances, because I don't want to be nominated. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, are you still calling the Democratic program a Fair Deal on your whistlestop the president. Yes, indeed. That's my program, and it's a fair deal for everybody. Every section of the economy has had a fair deal since I have been President. Reporter: We have run out of gas, Mr. President. the president. All right — that suits me all right. note: President Truman's three hundred and fourth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, May 15, 1952. 128 Remarks at the Armed Forces Dinner. May 16, 1952 Mr. Toastmaster, Mr. Secretary of State, dis- tinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I am most happy to be here tonight, and to have had this chance to listen to that great and splendid speech by the Secretary of State. I was especially interested in what he had to say about the State Department and the Department of Defense working together. You don't know what a lot of "corn hoeing" that has taken. But it is working, and it is working successfully. And it is necessary now, more than ever in the history of the country, because of our position in the world as the great power of the free nations of the world. We have that leadership whether we like it or not, and we must assume it. No President ever had such able people and such a fine organization to help him deal with foreign affairs as the one I have now. The Secretary of State and the Sec- retary of Defense I don't think have ever been equaled in those positions in my memory. I have a Secretary of the Army, and Secre- tary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force who are as efficient as any three men could possibly be. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by Gen- eral Bradley, with General Collins for the Army, General Vandenberg for the Air Force, and General Fechteler for the Navy, have never been in better hands. Admiral Fechteler — I'm sorry — I made a mistake. But it goes just the same. He would be just as good as a General as he is as an Admiral. It is a good thing to have that sort of help — a very good thing, because our rela- tions with other countries have become very complex and tremendously important, as the Secretary of State told you awhile ago. 339 [128] May 16 Public Papers of the Presidents When I attended this dinner last year, I told you we were in the midst of one of the greatest crises this country had ever faced. I told you that this crisis must be met, through the leadership of the United States of America. That is what we have been trying to do. We have had our ups and downs, but we have come a long way. Our position is much better today than it was a year ago. Our Armed Forces are stronger, our defense production is rolling on a large scale. We have made remarkable progress in firming up our defense arrangements with other countries, both in Europe and in Asia. We have made enough progress so that the path of an aggressor would be much more difficult, and that means that the chances of a third world war are just that much less. Now I spent 7 years, and some months, in the hardest kind of work, with but one object in view: to get peace in the world and to prevent a third world war. And I believe we are on the verge of suc- cess in what we started out to do. But some people are discouraged. There are people high and low who want to give up when the going is rough, when it is tough to meet a situation. I am here to tell you that I don't belong to that class. Very few people have suffered any real hardship because of this great emergency. Only the men who have done the fighting in Korea have suffered real hardships. So have their families. Their families have been real sufferers under the conditions we have had to face. And you mustn't for- get that. As I told you last year, we are here at a fine banquet, we are enjoying ourselves and we are telling how good we are. But there are men in the field who are working in the mud, who are facing artillery fire, who are sending artillery fire. There are men on the sea, who are flying and bombing the back places in Korea, who are trying to bring this thing to a conclusion. You must not do anything that will cause those men to get shot in the back. Certainly the rest of us — in gratitude to them — ought to be willing to carry through on the job they have given us a chance to do. Our mobilization program has gained tre- mendous momentum. That program can- not be turned off and on like a water faucet for reasons of political expediency. We have men in and out of the Congress who played petty politics and hampered our efforts to obtain world peace. If the defense effort is not carried forward on an orderly basis, it just won't work, and we will step right into world war three. And it can't be carried forward on an orderly basis without the necessary appropriations we need. And these appropriations should not be hamstrung with fool legislative riders. There is no use making the appropriations if you tie it up so that it can't be used. I am here to tell you that I am not going to stand for it. I am in a position to cause you some trouble if you do it. And I am not running for office, either. The defense program that has been put before the Congress is well within the economic capacity of this Nation. That budget is a tight budget, and an honest one. To win the cold war Congress must give what we ask. All this talk about it being an insupport- able burden and bringing on national bank- ruptcy is nothing in the world but poppy- cock. I don't think you believe a word of it. I don't. I hope the country and this Congress will give the Armed Forces the kind of support they deserve, and that they must have to win this cold war. The Armed Forces are doing a magnifi- cent job, but in the final analysis they will be no stronger than the support they get from the homefront. The responsibility rests with the Congress as well as it does with the President. The part of the job that must be done is up to all of us. I hope that every one of you here tonight will do your best to help me see 340 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 17 [129] that our fighting men and our world de- fense program are given the adequate sup- port which they deserve. note: The President spoke at 10:15 p.m. in the Presidential Room of the Statler Hotel in Washing- ton. During his remarks he referred to Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, Robert A. Lovett, Sec- retary of Defense, Frank Pace, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Dan A. Kimball, Secretary of the Navy, Thomas K. Finletter, Secretary of the Air Force, General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. J. Lawton Collins, Chief of Staff of the Army, Gen. Hoyt S. Vanden- berg, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and Adm. William M. Fechteler, Chief of Naval Operations. 129 Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action. May 17, 1952 General Bid die and distinguished guests: Your President has put me in a very em- barrassing position. You know, it has been remarked before historically "O that mine enemy would write a book." Sometimes it's bad for your friends to write books. It is a real pleasure to speak before the national convention of the ADA — Ameri- cans for Democratic Action. The ADA was set up in January 1947. Those were dark days for the liberal forces in America. But you people had the cour- age to take up the fight and go forward. You dedicated yourselves to fight for prog- ress and against reaction — against reaction of the right and against reaction of the left. You helped to hang the record of the 80th Congress around the neck of the Republican Party — and I finished the job. You held firm against the fanatical and misguided at- tacks of the Wallace movement. And since 1948, you have been going down the line for policies and programs in the interest of the people and in fulfillment of the highest values we cherish in this Republic. I con- gratulate you on all the effective work you have done for the cause of liberal govern- ment. Now then I am going to say something to you that I think maybe will please you a little bit. Of course, there was a time when it might not have been so pleasant for me to meet with the ADA. I understand that 4 years ago — along about this time — some of the leaders of ADA were engaged in rather wild fancies about the Presidential nomination. I am told there was a little poem that gained some currency in ADA circles in those days, and it went like this: "Between the Taft and the Dewey, When defeat is beginning to lower, Comes a pause in the ADA's occupation, That is known as the Eisenhower." You know, the peculiar part about it was that you were a young political organization and you had not studied the history of con- ventions. A President of the United States, when he desires and when he wants to be nominated, there isn't anybody in the world can keep him from being nominated. The same thing is true when he doesn't want to be nominated. I doubt if you will be having any pauses for that particular purpose this year. In spite of the various notions about the nomination in 1948, the outcome of the elec- tion that year pleased all of us here — par- ticularly me, and it astonished a great many people. It simply astonished a great many people. Mark Twain said, in an inscription I have always had on my desk, "Always do right. It will please some people, and astonish the rest." Well, that's what we did in 1948. We astonished the pollsters and the sabotage press, and the opposition candidates — Republican, crackpot, and Dixiecrat. The results were good for the country, even though they set back the science of political forecasting for a full generation. I hope it set them back forever. You remember way back — you are too 341 55-672—66 [129] May 17 Public Papers of the Presidents young for that — you know what happened to the Literary Digest in a certain poll. I like to remember Elmo Roper in his Sep- tember spasm in which he said no more polls were necessary, Dewey would be the next President, there really wasn't any use to hold an election in November. He has been apologizing about that ever since, and trying to get his poll back. Now the time has rolled around again when you folks have the problem of trying to pick and choose a candidate to support. You are not the only ones who have that problem, and I assure you I am fully aware that it can be a very perplexing problem indeed. But we are lucky in having a number of good presidential candidates in the field, and some of them are here tonight. I am sure that the ADA will find a candidate who expresses in his philosophy and in his record the things that this organization stands for. Obviously, such a man would have to be a Democrat. Because this is an election year, I would like to talk to you a little bit about politics. I know you are a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization. I heard it carefully analyzed here just a minute ago — at least, I have heard that you have some Republicans among your membership, and I am sure that at one time it was true. I don't know whether it is now or not. I want to ask these Republicans who are in the ADA not to include themselves in any remarks I am about to make about the Re- publican Party. When I talk about the Re- publican Party here tonight, I mean the dinosaur wing of the Republican Party — which unfortunately seems to be in control of that party. They are living in 1896 and 1920. They are made up of the Republi- cans of 1896 and 1920, under William Mc- Kinley and Warren G. Harding. The first thing I will say about the Repub- lican Party, believe it or not, is an expression of gratitude. I want to thank them for the way they help the Democrats win elections. Under the liberal policies of the Demo- cratic administration, our country has grown strong and prosperous. And this has been true for such a long time now that people tend to forget what things were like under the Republicans. They criticize the mis- takes the Democrats make, but they take for granted all the benefits we have brought them. Every 4 years it begins to look as if the people had forgotten what a Republican administration would mean to the country. And the Republicans go around convincing themselves that they cannot possibly lose the presidential election. I have heard it happen 4 times. But it is just at this point, when things look darkest for the Democrats, that you can count on the Republicans to do some- thing that will save the day — that is, it will save the day for us. You can always count on the Republicans, in an election year, to remind the people of what the Republican Party really stands for. You can always count on them to make it perfectly clear before the campaign is over that the Repub- lican Party is the party of big business, and that they would like to turn the country back to the big corporations and the big bankers in New York to run it as they see fit. They are just not going to do it. Just leave them alone, and the Republicans will manage to scare the daylights out of the farmer and the wage earner and the average American citizen. They always do that. I had the best time I ever had in my life going up and down this country, telling the people the truth, and when they found out what the truth was, you know what they did. And I am here to say to you that when a man in politics, if he is a leader, has the right ideas, the people are willing to listen to what he has to say. It is a matter of salesmanship. And that's the reason the pollsters are wrong, whenever you have a candidate who will go out and say what is good for the people — they will believe him; but they go down the street and meet the first three or four people, and ask them who you are for and why you are for him. "Oh," they say, 342 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 17 [129] "I'm for this fellow. Of course some article in the paper said this or that about him." And they don't know anything about them, really. That is really what makes leader- ship in politics. You have got to go out and sell yourself, and what you stand for. And we are going to get a candidate like that, and he is going to win. Now, the Republicans in 1948, in that 80th Congress of theirs, they went after organized labor with their Taft-Hartley law. They went after all wage earners by their attacks on the social security program. They went after the farmer by tampering with price supports and by failing to provide grain storage. This year they are at it again. The Republicans think they have been so suc- cessful with their campaign of smears and character assassination that they have the Democrats on the run. And they just can't restrain themselves enough to hide their true colors until after the election. They are too impatient. First one way and then another they are giving themselves away. Take this steel dispute. I am not going to talk about constitutional issues here tonight; they are before the Su- preme Court. I just want to bring out a few facts about the economics of this dispute in the steel industry. The steelworkers came in before a Govern- ment agency and proved that they were en- titled to some wage increases. It was all per- fectly fair, clear, and aboveboard. You can look at the figures and you can look at the record and see for yourself. And then it was the turn of the steel com- panies. They were asked to agree to fair and reasonable wage increases and to come in and submit their case for price increases, if they needed any. But would they do that? Not at all. Their profits, whatever yardstick you want to use, have been running close to record levels. I think that is the reason why they don't want to submit their case for consider- ation on its merits. They refuse to abide by the rules of our stabilization program. They just come out flatly and say that the Govern- ment has to give them a big price increase, or else. And I think they want a strike. Now the Republican leadership didn't have to get mixed up in that fracas at all. The Republican leaders could have taken a calm, judicious attitude and weighed both sides and decided where the merits lie. But that is not the way the Republican leaders act; it never is — thank goodness. They rushed into the fray at once. They took it up in Congress, and they made speeches up and down the Nation. They demanded four or R\e new investigations. They threatened to wreck price control, and they're doing their best to do it. And what is the purpose of all this? The purpose is to preserve high profits for the steel companies and prevent wage increases for the steel- workers. That shows exactly where the Old Guard stands. It shows that their hearts lie with the corporations and not with the working people. It proves that the old Republican leopard hasn't changed a single spot. It ought to serve as a big, glaring danger sign to the voters of this country of what to ex- pect if they turn the administration of the country over to the Republicans who are now in control of that party. I am glad to say that there were a few Re- publicans in Congress who did not join in the hue and cry against the steelworkers. Some of them looked at the facts and drew very different conclusions. And one of them did a fine, courageous job of present- ing the facts on the Senate floor. That was Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. The main body of the Republican leaders are doing just what they do every election year. They are making it good and plain to the American people that so far as do- mestic policies are concerned, the Republi- can Party is the party of reaction and the party of special privilege— just as I proved in 1948, and the people believed me; and they will yet. 343 [129] May 17 Public Papers of the Presidents And they are keeping pace in the field of foreign policy, too. Day after day, they are making it plain that the Republican Party is dominated by isolationists — the ones de- scribed by General Biddle — who don't really believe in international cooperation at all. Today, most of the American people know that the survival of our country de- pends on our foreign policy. They know that a firm, consistent foreign policy can arise only from a nonpartisan foundation. They know that the leaders of both parties should work together in foreign policy for the good of the country, and that partisan politics should stop at the waters' edge. The wiser heads of the Republican Party understand these things, too. Some of them have worked for a common agreement be- tween Democrats and Republicans on for- eign policy, for the good of the country. But just as these wiser heads appear to have succeeded in getting the Republican Party to stand for the good of the country in for- eign affairs, a revolt breaks out; and the old, unreconstructed, isolationist wing of the Republican Party sets out in full cry again — and scares the people half to death. This happened again, just a few weeks ago. Senator Wiley, the ranking Republican Member of the Foreign Relations Commit- tee in the Senate, made a speech to the news- paper editors on April 19. I had a press con- ference for those editors, and had more fun than I have had in a long time. He said there was a great deal in our international relations of which every American could be proud. He said that the Republican Party should not engage in unjustified criticism of our foreign policy, but should play a con- structive role. And he asked us all to re- member that, and I quote Senator Wiley verbatim, "We are first and last of that breed called Americans." It was a good speech, and it was an honest one. Well, what happened? First of all, the Bertie McCormick sabotage press jumped on Senator Wiley. They said he had en- dangered his country, betrayed the voters of his State, and imperiled his party. Then his Republican colleagues in the Senate went after him. Senator Cain from Washington, Senator Welker and Senator Mundt, and Senator Hickenlooper from Iowa, Senator Schoeppel of Kansas, and Senator Bridges of New Hampshire, and that great one-man grand jury Senator Ferguson of Michigan, all these gendemen went after Wiley in a pack. They sneered at him, they jeered at him, they distorted his words, they cross- questioned him. They gave him to under- stand that this was an election year, and that it was the duty of every Republican to attack the foreign policy of his country. They made it clear that first and last, when it came to foreign policy, they were of that breed called Republicans, and Senator Wiley ought to be likewise. In other words, they are Republicans before they are Americans. And there wasn't a single Republican who got up on his feet and said Senator Wiley was right. Nobody ought to be in doubt, now. That was the Republican answer to the latest plea, from one of their own members, for a bi- partisan foreign policy. That was their answer to a fellow Republican who dared to stand up and say that our country is doing a good thing when it cooperates with other countries, in Europe and in the Far East, to hold back aggression. Isolationism is not dead. Far from it. Even if the Republicans get a presidential candidate with a good record in foreign affairs, he will not be able to drown out the raucous isolationist outcries of the rest of the party. And that prospect is beginning to scare the voters — and it ought to scare them. Now, we can always rely on the Repub- licans to help us in an election year, but we can't count on them to do the whole job for us. We have got to go out and do some of it ourselves, if we expect to win. The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. 344 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 17 [129] And we don't need to try it. The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election. I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows him- self to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Re- publican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign. But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and Fair Deal really are — when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people — then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again. We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our plat- form and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse sug- gestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the peo- ple handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party. More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party. The rights and the welfare of millions of Americans are involved in the pledges made in the Democratic platform of 1948 and in the program of this administration. And those rights and interests must not be betrayed. Take the problem of offshore oil, for ex- ample. The minerals that lie under the sea off the coasts of this country belong to the Federal Government — that is, to all the people of this country. The ownership has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States. Those rights may be worth as much as somewhere be- tween $40 billion and $100 billion. If we back down on our determination to hold these rights for all the people, we will act to rob them of this great national asset. That is just what the oil lobby wants. They want us to turn the vast treasure over to a handful of States, where the powerful private oil interests hope to exploit it to suit themselves. Talk about corruption. Talk about steal- ing from the people. That would be rob- bery in broad daylight — on a colossal scale. It would make Teapot Dome look like small change. I got a letter from a fellow in Texas today, who is a friend of mine, and he was weep- ing over what the schoolchildren of Texas were going to lose if Texas didn't get its oil lands 9 miles out from the shore. And I composed a letter to him, and then didn't send it. I said what about the school- children in Missouri and Colorado, and North Dakota and Minnesota, and Tennes- see and Kentucky and Illinois, do they have any interest in this at all? Evidently not, it should all go to Texas. Well, it isn't going there, if I can help it. I can see how the Members of Congress from Texas and California and Louisiana might like to have all the offshore oil for their States. But I certainly can't under- stand how Members of Congress from the other 45 States can vote to give away the interest the people of their own States have in this tremendous asset. It's just over my head and beyond me how any interior Sen- ator or Congressman could vote to give that asset away. I am still puzzled about it. As 345 [129] May 17 Public Papers of the Presidents far as I am concerned, I intend to stand up and fight to protect the people's interests in this matter. There's another matter I don't intend to back down on. That is our party's pledge to develop the vast natural power resources of this country for the benefit of all the people, and make sure that the power pro- duced by public funds is transmitted to the consumer without a private rakeoff. How could we back down on a pledge like that? When we look around us at the great good that has been done by the TVA and the Grand Coulee and the Southwest Power Administration — when we see what projects like these have done to improve the lives and increase the prosperity of our people — how could we possibly justify weakening our policy? We just can't do it. I don't care how much money the power lobby puts into this campaign against us. I don't care what lies and smears they put out. There is a principle here which goes to the welfare of the country. And we are going to stick to it. We are going to win on it. There is another thing we must stand firm on. That is our pledge on the issue of civil rights. No citizen of this great coun- try ought to be discriminated against be- cause of his race, religion, or national origin. That is the essence of the American ideal and the American Constitution. I made that statement verbatim in the speech on March 29th, in which I said I would not run for President, and I hope that speech, and this, will be the fundamental basis of the platform of the Democratic Party in Chicago. We have made good progress on civil rights since 1948, in the Federal Govern- ment, in the Armed Forces, and in the States. But we still need the legislation which I recommended to the Congress over 4 years ago. We must go ahead to secure for all our citizens — east, west, north, and south — the right of equal opportunity in our economic and political life, and the right to equal protection under the law. That is real, true, 100 percent Americanism. This is very important to us abroad as well as at home. The vision of equal rights is the greatest inspiration of human beings throughout the world. There is one mem- ber of this ADA who can tell us from her own experience how important it is for the world to know that we share this vision. She has been our spokesman on this subject in the councils of the United Nations and she has done a wonderful job — and that is Mrs. Roosevelt. Another part of our fight that is extremely important — that is, to protect the civil liber- ties of Americans. Your national chairman, Francis Biddle, has pointed out the terrible dangers that lie in wait for us if we sur- render to the clamor of McCarthyism, and adopt the practice of guilt by accusation. We cannot, we will not, give up nor weaken on this issue either. I got a great kick the other day out of a headline, or article, on the left-hand side of the paper, in which it said that a committee in the Congress was going to investigate the Justice Department for browbeating wit- nesses. Now, I am not casting any reflec- tions on any good Senator or Representative, but they had better investigate themselves on that. These are some of the principles for which the Democratic Party stands, and for which the ADA stands. We stand for better edu- cation, better health, greater opportunities for all. We stand for fair play and decency, for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and the cherished principle that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty. Taken together, these principles are the articles of the liberal faith. I am sure that the liberal faith is the political faith of the great majority of Americans. It sometimes happens that circumstances of time and place combine to deny its expression. But the faith is there, and the reactionaries can never hope to have any but temporary advantage in this country. 346 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 20 [130] That is why the Fair Deal program will not be weakened by compromise. That is why the Democratic Party will nominate a liberal for President. That is why, this time, as in 1948, the ADA will throw its energies into the cam- paign battle — and will carry on the good fight against reaction, fear, and selfishness. And that is why, this time, as in 1948, we'll win. note: The President spoke at 9:32 p.m. in the Presidential Room of the Statler Hotel in Wash- ington. In his opening words he referred to Francis Biddle, former Attorney General of the United States, and national chairman of the Ameri- cans for Democratic Action. Later he referred to, among others, Henry A. Wallace, candidate for President in 1948 on the Progressive Party ticket, Robert A. Taft, Senator from Ohio, Thomas E. Dewey, Governor of New York, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, Elmo B. Roper, Jr., Director of International Public Opinion Research, Inc., and Robert R. McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune. The address was broadcast. For the President's news conference with the American Society of Newspaper Editors, see Item 130 Remarks at a Luncheon in the Cadet Dining Hall at West Point. May 20, 1952 General Irving, distinguished visitors, and the Corps of Cadets at West Point: I am having a wonderful time today. I was telling my Missouri cadet friends that the only ones who are suffering and having trouble are the ones who are my hosts. It is always a nuisance to have the President of the United States around. He has to have certain special treatment, which is for the Presidency and not for the individual. Al- ways bear in mind that the Presidency of this great Republic of ours is the greatest office in the history of the world. It is the most im- portant office in the world, and the man in it must do everything he can to cause all the people, at home and abroad, to respect that office for what it is. World leadership came and was forced upon us, because we did not want to assume that responsibility — we refused to assume that responsibility in 1920; and the Second World War was the result. Beginning in 1938 — when Hitler went into Poland — it began to dawn on the people at the head of the Government of the United States, that we had a place in the world which had to be filled. We are trying our best to fill that place in the world. You young men who will be the future generals, the men who will form the military policy of the United States, have a responsibility which you will have to assume just as soon as you finish your education. Now, this is your great school — I was telling my young friends from Missouri here, that this school has produced some of the greatest men in the history of our country. This school has made a contribu- tion that is one of the greatest in the history of the country. I am proud to be your guest today on that account. And I am just as .proud — and I am interpolating here — of the Naval Academy and its cadets. I want to see you become the leaders and the citizens in our military setup that you should. General Bradley this afternoon is going to give you a lecture on what it means to be a graduate of this school, and what your responsibilities are, and what our mili- tary policy really is. Now I didn't intend to give you a lecture on citizenship and the Presidency of the United States, but I thought maybe you would be interested in knowing that the President himself — an individual like every- body else — must keep his eye on the ball, in an effort to attain the respect for the of- fice that it deserves. It took me a long time to understand why some people would come to see me and be timid or scared, and couldn't talk; and then I had to remember back when I was in the 347 [130] May 20 Public Papers of the Presidents United States Senate, when I used to have to go and call on President Roosevelt once or twice a week. I was always scared and embarrassed, because I was before the great- est office in the world — and one of the finest men also that ever lived and ever occupied it. And in order for me to understand how people feel when they come to see me, I have got to remember my experience my- self. I couldn't appreciate it for a long time, but I do now. And I try my level best to make people feel that they do not have to be afraid of the President, because he is only interested in the welfare of the whole coun- try. He has nothing else to do but to see that the country runs as it should, and to see that we keep our friends in the world, so we won't have a third world war, and so you won't have to go and be cannon fodder. I hope you will remember that. note: The President spoke at 12:50 p.m. In his opening words he referred to Maj. Gen. Frederick A. Irving, Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. Later he referred to General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. See also Item 131. 131 Address at the Sesquicentennial Convocation of the United States Military Academy. May 20, 1952 General Irving, General Bradley, Dr. Comp- ton, Honorable Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and distinguished guests: I want to make a statement — just two statements, before I start my regular talk. I had luncheon at noon with nine Missouri cadets, and I want to say to them — and I am saying it very publicly — that I haven't had a more pleasant luncheon in many a day. I appreciated it very much. I have another statement to make. You know, the President has several positions in which he works. He is President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and he is the social head of state, and he is the head of his party. And I am going to work in two of those capacities right this minute. As President of the United States, under the Constitution, the President has power to pardon anybody for anything but impeach- ment. Of course, he couldn't pardon himself. So, exercising my authority as President of the United States, under the Constitution, I direct the Commandant of West Point to relieve all this special punish- ment that is going on, on the Post today. And as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I direct General Irving to carry out that order. Now you know, I am in a sort of position that Senator Barkley found himself in one time. And I want this to be distinctly under- stood, that I enjoyed immensely the two speeches that were made before me. They were wonderful. I hope I can make half the contribution that either one of those wonder- ful men made. But Senator Barkley was the last one on a program, and Senator Barkley likes to speak, and he took his watch out and put it on the stand and he spoke for about an hour. Then he looked at the watch, and he picked it up and put it to his ear and shook it; and some old gentleman out in the audience said, "Senator, if it has stopped, there's a calendar behind you." Well, you are not going to need a calendar because this is not that long. I hope it won't be as boresome as you may anticipate it will be. It is a real pleasure for me to be here today, and to join in celebrating the establishment of the United States Military Academy at West Point 150 years ago. This Academy was started during Thomas Jefferson's first term as President. The 348 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 20 [131] United States at that time was relatively small and weak, and surrounded by dangers. We had just fought a limited and undeclared war with France to protect the freedom of our commerce and shipping. We were en- gaged in fighting another limited and un- declared war with the Barbary Pirates for the same purpose. Jefferson, like Washington and Hamilton and other leaders of our young Republic, knew very well that a strong military estab- lishment was vital to the preservation of American liberty. And those patriot leaders knew also that you cannot have effective military forces unless you have well-trained, well-prepared officers. They all knew how Washington had to struggle and experiment all through the Revolution to find officers who could take troops into battle and lead them to victory. That was why they wanted a military academy, as an essential part of a strong, permanent national defense organi- zation. But there was a great deal of opposition to starting a military academy in this coun- try. It took 20 years of argument and per- suasion after the Revolution was over before the Academy could be started. Now, listen to this: It was finally started largely because Jefferson took the position that if the Con- gress didn't authorize a military academy, he would start one up himself! The argument over establishing a military academy was part and parcel of the argument over whether the United States should have strong national defenses. That argument has continued, of course, right down to the present day, and much of the debate after the Revolution is very, very modern. They are making those same old arguments today, just as they were made about the Military Academy when Jefferson was trying to start it. There were a lot of people in this country in 1800 who were afraid that setting up a military academy and an army and navy would make us belligerent and warlike. You can hear echoes of that point of view today in the debate over universal military training. There were a lot of other people in 1800 who said that a strong national defense would cost too much; that we couldn't af- ford it, that we ought to find some magic formula for achieving security without hav- ing to pay for it. That point of view is not only echoed today — it is loudly shouted in the newspapers and the halls of Congress. Fortunately, these arguments did not pre- vail against the hardheaded commonsense of men like Jefferson. The Military Acad- emy was set up; and this country has had occasion to be thankful many times since then that our early leaders had so much foresight. The Military Academy has repaid this country many times over for every cent it has cost. We have learned from experience that, while it may be expensive to maintain a strong national defense, it is much more expensive not to have one. Time and again we have allowed our Armed Forces to dwindle to a fraction of what they should have been, and then we have had to pay enormously — in money and in lives — be- cause of our lack of preparedness. There are people right now who want us to relax and cut down on our defense program. They are just as wrong as they can be. We must pay the cost of preventing a world war — or we will surely have to pay the im- mensely greater cost of fighting one. The other fear of the early opponents of the Military Academy has also proved groundless. Our country has never become warlike or aggressive. That is partly because our Constitution nailed down so firmly the principle of civil- ian control over the military. The most important means by which this was done was by providing in the Constitution that the President, who is the civilian head of the Government elected by the people, shall be Commander in Chief of all the military forces. Many Presidents, including the present one, have demonstrated that those 55-672—6 -26 349 [131] May 20 Public Papers of the Presidents words in the Constitution mean just what they say. But, in addition to this, the spirit of our people has never been warlike. Our people came to this country to find peace and free- dom. That is what we have always wanted. That is what we want now, and that is what our national policy is designed to preserve. But there is a vast difference between being peaceful and being passive. We want to achieve peace. But we know we can't have it unless we are willing to stand up for our rights. We know we can't have lasting peace un- less we work actively and vigorously to bring about conditions of freedom and justice in the world. That is what we are trying to do. We are having to do it in the face of a con- certed campaign of threats and sabotage and outright aggression directed by the Soviet Union. The policies of the Soviet Union are ex- actly the opposite of our own. We want to establish equality and justice and the rule of law among all nations. They want to estab- lish domination and dictatorship and the rule of force over all countries. The Bolshe- viks want physical control of the individual, and they also want to control his thoughts and his soul. This makes our situation — the situation of all free nations — difficult and dangerous in the extreme. But I am firmly convinced that it does not necessarily mean a third world war. The free countries can, by proper and adequate defense measures, make clear to the Kremlin that aggression would be doomed to failure. And the free nations can, by economic and political means, build up their strength so as to be safe from Communist infiltration and subversion. But strong and active as we may be, we cannot avoid risks and sacrifices. They are inherent in the situation and we cannot wish them out of existence. The course of events is not completely in our control. In Korea we had no choice but to meet armed aggression with military force. If we had not met aggression head-on, the United Nations Charter would have been reduced to a scrap of paper. If Communist aggres- sion had been allowed to succeed in Korea, the Communist conquest of all Asia would have been simply a matter of time. If the United Nations had failed, and Asia had fallen, we would have been well on the way to a disintegration of freedom in the whole world. But that did not happen. The valor and sacrifice of United States fighting men — together with the forces of the Republic of Korea and the contingents from 15 other countries — has beaten the aggressors back within their own territory. Our Army, led in large part by men trained here at West Point, has done a superb job. From the time our men were first sent into action, in the gallant rear guard defense down to the Pusan perimeter — from then right on up to the present, the United States Army in Korea has been magnificent. And the men who have fought with them — in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, and from the armed forces of other free countries- have been just as brave and just as effective. Last June, 11 months ago, the badly bat- tered Communists offered to confer about a military armistice in Korea. We were will- ing to conclude such an armistice. And we still are. We don't want any more fighting than is necessary. But we were not inter- ested, and we are not interested now, in any armistice that involves selling out the prin- ciples for which we are fighting. Patiently and skillfully, General Ridgway and his negotiating team, headed by Admiral Joy, have worked to bring about an effective armistice. They have done a masterful job in the face of great provocation. They have met threats, and abuse, and outright lies, all with great self-control and an unyielding insistence on the essentials of a just and honorable armistice. Gradually, the Communists have come to realize that we will not sacrifice our prin- ciples to obtain an armistice. We do not know whether they will finally agree on 350 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 20 [131] an honest and workable armistice. So far, they have agreed to some of the points that must be covered. They have agreed that the armistice line across Korea should be a defensible military line determined by the location of the opposing forces. They have agreed that no reinforcements shall be brought into Korea by either side during the armistice. They have agreed that an inspection commission shall observe the carrying out of the armistice terms — and are apparendy willing to withdraw their request that the Soviet Union should be one of the inspecting nations. Up to now, however, the Communists have not agreed upon a fair and proper exchange of prisoners of war. The Com- munists have continued to insist that all the prisoners we have taken must be handed over to them — regardless of whether or not they are willing to be sent back behind the Iron Curtain, and regardless of what their fate would be if they were sent back. It is perfectly clear that thousands and thousands of prisoners we hold would vio- lently resist being returned to the Commu- nists because they fear the slavery or death which would await them. It would be a betrayal of the ideals of freedom and justice for which we are fighting if we forced these men at bayonet point to return to their ex- masters. We won't do it. We won't buy an armistice by trafficking in human slavery. We do not know whether the Communists will accept that position. We may not know for some time yet. Negotiations are con- tinuing under General Clark's direction. We shall remain ready to reach honorable settlements by peaceful means. But we must also be alert and ready to meet treach- ery or a renewal of aggression if that should come. During these months of armistice negotia- tions in Korea, the Communists have in- creased their military strength. They have more men there than they had a year ago, and many more tanks and planes. But we have consolidated and increased our strength in Korea, also. The morale of our men is high, and our units are well trained, well equipped, and at a peak of combat efficiency. The troops of the Re- public of Korea are far better trained and equipped than they were a year ago, and are capable of carrying a much larger share of the defense of their country. The situation in Korea is still difficult and uncertain. Everybody should understand that. But everyone should also understand that the sacrifices of the United Nations in Korea have brought tremendous gains to- ward a world of law and order. The plain fact is that the Communists have utterly failed in their objectives in Korea. The Communist aggression failed to shat- ter the United Nations. Instead, the Com- munist attack has made the United Nations stronger and more vigorous and has demon- strated that it can and will act to defend freedom in the world. The Communists failed to win a cheap and easy victory in Korea. Instead, they have suffered more than a million casual- ties, and have used up enormous amounts of war material — and they are back behind the line where they started. The Communists failed to establish tyr- anny over the Republic of Korea. Instead, the Communist aggression has brought dev- astation to North Korea — a terrible warn- ing to the other satellites in the Soviet em- pire of the cost of aggression. Furthermore, the Communists failed to break the will of free men in other countries. The attack on Korea was supposed to warn other countries that they must yield to the demands of the Kremlin — or else. The Communist aggression did show the world that the Kremlin was ready and willing to try to extend its power by military conquest. But the effect of this was not to send the free countries into a panic of fear. Instead, they immediately stepped up their plans for building military forces, and began to get together on concrete and definite defense arrangements. As a result of the resistance to Communist 351 [131] May 20 Public Papers of the Presidents aggression in Korea, the Kremlin knows that free men will stand up and fight against aggression. As a result of the resistance to Communist aggression in Korea, free men around the world know that if they stand up for what is right, they will not be de- serted by the United Nations. And, as a result of the resistance to Communist ag- gression in Korea, the free countries are infinitely better prepared to defend them- selves than they were 2 years ago. Our own defense production has risen very sharply. Our production of military supplies and equipment is more than three times what it was a year ago. For example, in January 1952 six times the dollar value of ammunition was delivered as was deliv- ered in January 195 1. In electronics and communication equipment, five times as much was delivered. The production of one of our most im- portant fighter planes was four times as much this spring as it was last. We now have several thousand tanks of a new model which is very much better than the previous models. Our Navy has taken hundreds of ships out of mothballs and has a sound ship- building program underway. An atomic artillery piece has been devel- oped and tested and will have to be reckoned with in the future. The Navy is working on its first atomic powered submarine. Our overall atomic production program is in excellent shape. In all the vast and complicated field of combat vehicles and military weapons, the research and preparation of the last several years are paying off. The goods are being delivered to the hands of men who are ready to use them in defense of freedom — both in our own forces and among the many trusted friends that we have all over the world. The improvement in defense production is not the only indication of an improved situation in the world. In the Far East, Japan has rejoined the family of free and democratic nations. The Communist insurrection in the Philippines has been brought under control. In Indo- china, the forces of France and the associated states have succeeded in holding the Com- munists in check. The people of Indochina are making progress in the creation of na- tional armies to defend their own independ- ence. Countries like India and Pakistan and Indonesia are making real headway in creat- ing the conditions of economic growth that must underlie solid and stable progress. In Europe, great steps toward unity are being taken. The Schuman plan and the plans for the European Defense Community are moving forward. We are working to reach final agreement on a new relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany. This will make it possible for Germany to take her place alongside the other independ- ent countries of Europe as a full and equal member of the community of nations. These are very remarkable developments. Countries like France, Germany, Italy, Bel- gium, Holland, and Luxembourg, with centuries of rivalry behind them, are now starting to work together. They are devel- oping common economic and political insti- tutions, and they are merging their military forces into one great defensive system. No wonder the Soviets are trying to block this advance. No wonder the current Com- munist propaganda line is trying to persuade the countries of Western Europe that they should stay separate and weak, instead of joining together for strength. The Kremlin knows as well as anyone else that in union there is strength — and that a united Europe can frustrate the Kremlin's dearest wish of absorbing the European countries one by one into the Soviet Empire. I don't think the people of Europe are going to be fooled by this Soviet propaganda. I believe the firm and concrete steps the Europeans have already taken, over the op- position of the Kremlin, are clear indications that they are not going to be stopped. I think the Europeans are going to continue to move toward closer union — for they 352 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 20 [132] know that is the way of strength and progress for them and for the whole free world. I have been speaking of the progress that is being made. But I don't want anyone to get the impression that there is any basis for relaxing or letting up. These signs of prog- ress are not evidence that the battle for free- dom is won — only that we are on the way to winning it. If we halt or falter now, we could ruin the whole structure of peace and freedom we have been so painfully building. I have warned the Congress, on several occasions, that the financial support I have requested for our defense effort and for the mutual security program is absolutely neces- sary. Any cuts in those items would have extremely serious effects. No one enjoys bearing the heavy costs of national security in these dangerous times, but we should never forget how much smaller they are than the costs of another war. No one should assume that the possibility of world war has become remote. The forces of the Soviet Empire are large, well- trained, and equipped with modern weapons. The Kremlin's desire to dominate the world is obviously unchanged. But I believe we are well on the way to preserving our freedom without paying the frightful cost of world war. We are on the right track. And we must go ahead. If we are to succeed, we must have steady nerves and stout hearts. There is no easy way out, no quick solution. But we have with us the overwhelming support of the free countries, and the powerful moral forces of liberty and justice. We are using the strength God has given us in this great and wonderful Nation to win the struggle for peace and freedom throughout the world. You young men here at West Point are called on to play a great part in the tremen- dous effort we are making. You are being trained for a career which, in these times especially, means service for the great good of your Nation and the welfare of all man- kind. Your opportunities are great because the task ahead of you is great. We need — all of us — to draw on the won- derful tradition of resolution and courage which has been cherished for 150 years in the life of the cadets here at West Point. note: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. in the Field House at the academy. In his opening words he referred to Maj. Gen. Frederick A. Irving, Su- perintendent of the United States Military Academy, General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dr. Karl T. Compton, Chairman of the Corporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Frank Pace, Jr., Secretary of the Army, Dan A. Kimball, Secretary of the Navy, and Thomas K. Finletter, Secretary of the Air Force. During his remarks the President referred to Vice President Alben W. Barkley, former Senator from Kentucky, Vice Adm. Charles Turner Joy, senior United Nations delegate at the Korean armistice negotiations, and Gen. Mark Clark, Commander in Chief for the Far East. See also Item 130. 132 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Awarded to General Ridgway. May 20, 1952 THE PRESIDENT of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress July 9, 19 1 8, has awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (Second Oak Leaf Cluster) to GENERAL MATTHEW B. RIDGWAY, USA for exceptionally meritorious service in a duty of great responsibility: General Matthew B. Ridgway, United States Army, has distinguished himself by exceptionally meritorious service to the United States and to the free people of the world in positions of great responsibility. At an extremely critical period, he assumed command of the United States Eighth Army and of United Nations Forces in Korea and through magnificent personal leadership led these forces in a counter-offensive which crushed the Communist advance and drove the enemy north of the 38th parallel. 353 [132] May 20 Public Papers of the Presidents In April 195 1 General Ridgway became Commander-in-Chief of United States Forces, in the Far East and Supreme Commander, Allied Powers in Japan. In addition to di- recting United Nations strategy and guiding the armistice negotiations in Korea with skill and firm forbearance, he supervised, on behalf of the Allied Powers, the final stages of the rebirth of the Japanese people as an independent nation. In these grave respon- sibilities he displayed the highest order of physical and moral courage, skillful leader- ship, and broad understanding. General Ridgway's extraordinary service merits the gratitude not only of the Amer- ican people but of free peoples everywhere. note: The citation was presented by the President following his address at the sesquicentennial con- vocation of the United States Military Academy (Item 131). General Ridgway had accompanied the President on the trip from Washington. See also Item 112. 133 Remarks to the Winner of the Teacher of the Year Award. May 21, 1952 MRS. JONES, I congratulate you on this award. Next to a child's mother, the greatest in- fluence on his character and his growth into a good citizen is his teacher. I remember with much pleasure the teach- ers I had when I was going through the grade schools and through high school. Some of them are still alive, and I still keep in touch with those that are alive. They had a tremendous influence on the route which I followed in informing myself on government, on the Republic of the United States, and what it means. And I am more than happy for this opportunity of bringing the attention of the country to the fact that one of its main supports, and one of the reasons why it is the greatest Republic in the world has been due to the teachers who take young minds and train them to be citi- zens as they should be. Therefore, it is a great pleasure to me to have you here this morning. note: The President spoke at 11:40 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The recipient of the award was Mrs. Geraldine Jones, a first grade teacher at Hope School in Santa Barbara, Calif. The United States Office of Education, in coopera- tion with McCall's magazine, selected Mrs. Jones from nominees submitted by State departments of education. 134 Remarks at the Dedication of a Memorial Plaque Honoring Pvt. Leslie Coflfelt. May 21, 1952 THANK YOU very much, Captain. I cer- tainly appreciate your thoughtfulness in placing this plaque on the Blair House. It commemorates an event about which I do not like to think. It taught me a very good lesson, that the President is well and amply guarded by good and brave men, both in uni- form and in the Secret Service. This young man, to whom this plaque is erected, was one of the most pleasant officers on the force — and one of the ablest. It brought home to me the fact that it is not the President who is in danger on occa- sions of this kind, but it is the men who guard him. And I want to say to you that I have been extremely cooperative with the guards ever since this event took place, and I shall con- tinue to be just that way until I am through with this office. Not because I am afraid of being shot at — I have been shot at by ex- perts— but I do not want to endanger the lives of the men who spend their lives guard- ing the President of the United States. 354 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 21 [135] Thank you again very much for this memorial plaque. note: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. at the Blair House in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Capt. Russell B. Wine, U.S. Army, na- tional president of the National Sojourners. Private Cofrelt, a member of the White House Police, was killed during the assassination attempt on the President on November 1, 1950. For an account of the incident, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 278 ftn. (p. 695). The plaque was presented by the National So- journers, a patriotic military Masonic organization. Private Coffelt was a Mason. 135 Remarks to Members of the National Advisory Committee of the Veterans Administration Voluntary Services. May 21, 1952 Mr. Chairman, General Gray, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I am very happy to be here to participate in the meeting of the National Advisory Committee of the Veterans Administration Voluntary Services. I understand that you represent 40 different organizations which are joined together in the voluntary service program for our veterans hospitals. They tell me that you have about 70,000 people working in these hospitals on a volunteer basis. I think that is one of the finest things I ever heard of, and I want to compliment you most highly on it. It is a great public service, and I appreciate it as President of the United States, representing all the people of America. When you can get 70,000 people to put aside their own business and to go to work in the hospitals as you are doing, it is a real public service. The work of your volunteers shows that they understand how much we owe to the veterans, who have fought for our country and for the world, to save democ- racy. Our first obligation, of course, is to the veterans who are disabled because of their service, and to the families of those veterans who have been disabled, or who have died in the service or have been killed. The Gov- ernment has a responsibility to these veter- ans, and I think we have a good program for meeting that responsibility, just as General Gray has told you. But you people can furnish something the Government never can provide, and that is the personal touch — just a little bit of home. I visited the wounded servicemen many times, both in veterans hospitals and in the hospitals of the armed services. There is nothing that gives me more pride in my country than the spirit I have found in those young men. I paid a number of visits to Walter Reed and Bethesda during and after the war. Also, during World War II, I visited the hospital at Mare Island, where I met a Navy surgeon by the name of Kessler — Capt. Henry H. Kessler he was then; he is doing the same sort of work now for the great State of New Jersey. He was interested in the rehabilitation of men who had lost arms and legs and other parts of their anatomy in the war. I went on to Brigham, Utah, to inspect another hospital, where I found an Army surgeon by the name of J. Laughtenhauser. He was a colonel at that time, and he was just as enthusiastic as the Navy surgeon. I got those two gentlemen together, and that was the beginning of our rehabilitation program, which is now headed by Admiral Mclntire, and which is doing magnificent work for all disabled people in the country, as well as veterans. That rehabilitation pro- gram is one of the grandest things that this country has ever put on. Then in September 1950 I made a trip out to a little island in the middle of the Pacific called Wake Island, to confer with a certain general. On that trip I stopped in California, at the Fairfield-Suisun Air Base, and visited the hospital there. They have changed the name of that base now, calling it Travis Air 355 [135] May 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Force Base, but they still have the hospital there, where they bring the wounded from Korea. I spoke to every man in the hospital that night, and had some of the most inter- esting conversations you ever listened to in your life with those men who had been wounded. I stopped at the great hospital in Honolulu as I came back, which was full of wounded Korean veterans; and I talked to them. And I want to tell you this: those men know what it's all about. I wish everybody in this country were as well informed. Those were some of the men who have been fighting in Korea, and they fought to hold back the Communists, while we en- deavor at this end to work out a solution that will bring about peace in the world. These young men are suffering in our effort to bring about that peace. There are some people in this country who say they don't know why we are in Korea. My suggestion to them is to go and visit these wounded Korean veterans, and they will find out. They know, but they don't want to let on like they do, these people don't. The men I saw in the hospitals in Cali- fornia and Honolulu knew why we were in Korea. They had seen the Communist ag- gression at first-hand, and they knew why we have to fight against it. If all the people in this country — every one of us — understood the situation as well as the men who have been in Korea, and who are there now, then we wouldn't have any trouble putting over the program for world peace. Some of those boys I saw in California and Hawaii had been fighting in the front- lines only a few days earlier — 5,000 and 7,000 miles away in Korea. When our men in Korea are wounded, the handling and med- ical care they get are truly remarkable. Every conceivable method, including heli- copters and airplanes, is used to get them to aid stations and hospitals. I have heard of cases where our pilots who crashed or bailed out behind enemy lines were picked up within 5 minutes — behind enemy lines, mind you, they were picked up. One of our paratroopers, who was injured in a jump north of Seoul, was back in the air and on his way to the hos- pital in less than 2 minutes. We now have much better methods of treating the wounded than we had in World War I, or even in World War II. In Korea the doctors managed to save over 97 percent of the wounded who reach the frontline treatment stations. Isn't that a record. You ought to compare that record with the War Between the States, and with the Spanish- American War, and with World War I, and it will show you what progress we have made in the medical profession in this great Nation of ours. You are making a contribu- tion to that, when you help rehabilitate these men, and when you make them feel as if the people at home are interested in them. I know that every one of you here tonight will join with me in paying tribute to these medical people who are doing such a won- derful job in Korea. I also want to pay tribute to the people who provide medical services for our vet- erans, after they leave the armed services. There has been a great improvement in the medical service of the Veterans Admin- istration since the end of World War II. I know you people of the voluntary services are aware of this, because you have seen it at first-hand, and have taken a part in it. General Hawley and Dr. Magnuson worked out ways and means for bringing in the best medical knowledge in the country — and took many other steps to develop our outstanding medical department. Admiral Boone has carried on the good work they started, to build a first-rate medical program for veterans. I am sure this audience will be interested in knowing what is about to happen to this first-rate medical program. Up in the Con- gress, the so-called "economy bloc" has de- cided it is too expensive, so the House of Representatives lopped off $75 million of the money required to run that medical program. 356 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 21 [135] I hope the Senate will put the money back. If it doesn't, it will just be too bad for many of those veterans who have the misfortune to stand in need of medical care. I wouldn't be surprised if the House of Representatives wouldn't like to see this money restored by the Senate, and they can go home and say how economy-minded they have been, and the Senate kept them from doing it. I have actually some sympathy for these economizers in Congress. They are in a terrible bad fix. When I sent my budget up there last January, they didn't stop to look at it, they didn't examine it at all, they just began to scream, "It's too much." "It's full of water." "It has got to be cut." Then they began to look for places to do the cut- ting, and you know what? — places to cut were very hard to find. So the economizers have been doing some laughably sharp turn- ing and twisting. I didn't think, however, they would ever get themselves out on this particular limb about which I am talking now. Let me tell you how absurd this thing really is. For several years the Veterans Administration has been engaged in a construction program to increase the number of hospital beds available for veterans. Now the Congress wanted me to include in that program 16,000 more beds than I thought were necessary. We had some beds, at the time we were estimating this situation, that we were not able to get the people that we should have to make them operate. And I didn't see any use in adding 16,000 more beds that we couldn't care for. I was damned from one end of the country to the other because I wouldn't build those beds. You would have thought I was the worst enemy the veterans ever had. But we stuck to our guns, left out the 16,000 extra beds, and went ahead with the others. And guess what! — the appropriations bill the House passed won't even provide enough money to operate all the hospital beds the Veterans Administration is going to have. I wonder what we would do with that extra 16,000 under those conditions. Can you imagine anything as absurd as that? It's equal to the situation in the Post Office Department. We had an immense deficit in the Post Office Department, and I sent a message down to the Congress and asked them to meet that deficit by making the people pay who are being subsidized by the mails to carry some of their literature through the mails, which is not exactly what everybody ought to read, in my opinion. The slick magazines and a lot of the Sunday newspapers are being subsidized and being carried through. Well, the Congress, after a lot of arguing around, added a pittance to the Post Office cost of carrying the mail to the public of about $160 million. And then you know what they did? They added an expense account to the Post Office Department of some $400 million, which made the deficit bigger than ever. Now that is right in line with this veterans thing that we are talking about. I don't understand what in Sam Hill they are thinking about. First they try to make us build more beds than we need, and then they won't appro- priate the money to operate the ones we have. I don't know what's going to happen to this situation. But I will tell you one of the things that is the matter. This is an election year and there is a lot of ballyhoo goes on in an election year, as I proved in 1948. And some of it isn't true. What I am telling you, they are facts. Then there was another matter of some interest to veterans that the House voted on the other day. I suppose I shouldn't men- tion these things, but after all this is an election year, as I told you a while ago, and this is a democracy, and the people aie entitled to know what is going on. And if you don't think I am going to let 'em know, you're mistaken. Well, day before yesterday, the House had before it a social security bill. This was a good bill and it would make a number of desirable changes in the social security law. 357 [135] May 21 Public Papers of the Presidents One of these changes would have provided that veterans of the fighting in Korea should get credit under the Social Security System for the time they spend in Korea. Every- body thought that was fine and thought it was right. But along came that great orga- nization which hates the administration worse than it hates the devil, called the American Medical Association, and said there is something in this bill that looks like socialized medicine. I don't know what they were talking about. Nobody else did, and I don't think they did, either. There was nothing in that bill that came any closer to socialized medicine than the payments that the American Medical As- sociation makes to the advertising firm of Whitaker and Baxter to misrepresent my health program. But there are a lot of people in Congress who jump when the American Medical As- sociation cracks the whip. And there are a lot of others who roll over and play dead when anybody yells "socialism." After all, as I said a while ago, this is an election year. The upshot of all this was that the bill was defeated on the House floor. It may come up for another vote later on, and I hope it will pass. I think the people who voted against it will soon begin to see the light, because I am going to do a little preaching, and I think I will bring a little light to the souls of some of them. Because this is an election year, not only for the American Medical Association, it is an elec- tion year for the veterans as well. It has been a wonderful thing to be here with you tonight, and I want to assure you that I am talking as a citizen of the United States, and as a veteran. I am not a candidate for office. I am talking for the welfare of all the people in this country, and that is what I am going to continue to do, as long as I live. I am not going to run for President any more, be- cause I want to get out arid say some things and do some things that I can't say and do while I am President. I can't tell you how much I appreciate all that you are doing for the veterans in our hospitals. They deserve the best, and I know that from you and your organizations they are going to get the best — and they are not entitled to anything but the best. I am a veteran. I was a veteran of the First World War, and I tried my best to be a veteran in this war. I went down to see General Marshall — I had kept my Reserve commission — and told him I would appre- ciate it most highly if he would let me command a field artillery outfit, because I was a colonel. And the General pulled his glasses down on his nose, like that, and said, "Senator, how old are you?" And I said, "I am 56." He said, "You are too damned old. You go back and stay in the Senate. You can do more good there than you can commanding a field artillery outfit." Sometime after that, when I was Presi- dent, General Marshall was Chief of Staff, and he came to see me on official business. And I have a secretary who likes to pull pranks on people, and he said to the Gen- eral, "Now General, under the same circum- stances, what would you say to him now?" The General said, "I would tell him the same thing, but I would be very much more diplomatic about it." I am interested in the welfare of the vet- erans, just as you are. I want to see them get everything that is coming to them, and I am going to do everything I possibly can to see that they get it. And I want you to do the same thing. I want you to do everything you possibly can to see that these men, who fought to save the country and who fought to save democracy in the world, get the proper treatment. I want to see the Korean veterans get justice — and they are not getting it now. They should have the same treatment, they should have exactly the same treatment and on the same basis, without the mistakes, that the veterans of World War II received. And I sent a message to the Congress ask- 358 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 22 [136] ing for that sort of situation. I want you to help me on it, because it is just, it is honor- able, and it ought to be done. Keep up the good work for the veterans, and nobody in the world appreciates what you are doing any more than I do. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 8:30 p.m. at the Departmental Auditorium in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Carl R. Gray, Jr., Administrator of Veterans' Affairs. Later he re- ferred to Vice Adm. Ross T. Mclntire, Chairman of the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped, Maj. Gen. Paul R. Hawley, Chairman of the Commission on Medical and Hospital Services of the Armed Forces and former Surgeon General of the Army, Dr. Paul B. Magnuson, Chairman of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, Vice Adm. Joel T. Boone, Executive Secretary of the Commis- sion on Medical and Hospital Services of the Armed Forces and Chief Medical Director, Department of Medicine and Surgery of the Veterans Administra- tion, and General of the Army George C. Marshall. 136 The President's News Conference of May 22, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I am sorry that I am 6 minutes late, but my clock over on the mantel that Ad- miral Nimitz 1 gave me is running slow these days. That is what made me late. I am going to have it adjusted. [Laughter] Q. Who gave the clock to you, Mr. President? the president. Admiral Nimitz. It's a Navy clock — and it strikes bells. [2.] I am very happy that the railroad strike is settled at last.2 And it could have been setded exacdy as it was in 1950, but people sometimes can't understand that it is better to abide by the law than not. 1 Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz. 2 On May 21, the White House released a state- ment by John R. Steelman. The Assistant to the President, in which he announced that the dispute between the Nation's railroads and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Order of Railway Conductors, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen had been setded on that day. Mr. Steelman listed the provisions of the settlement and added that representatives of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, who had settled their disputes with the railroads a year before, had cooperated with him in his efforts to help the parties reach an agreement. For the President's original order providing that the United States Army take control of and operate the railroads, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 221. For the President's letter to the Secretary of the Army directing him to terminate Govern- ment control, see Item 141, below. I am appreciative of John Steelman 's hard work in the matter, which finally brought the thing to a proper conclusion, and I hope from now on that the railroad labor and the railroad management will abide by the Rail- way Labor Act, which has been very success- ful up to this time. This situation of seizure was brought about by the request of the unions them- selves, so they haven't any kick on seizure, and management was in favor of it also. The thing is over now, and just as quickly as I can get the papers signed, I will turn the roads back to the owners. Now I am ready for questions. [3.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that might be a good pattern for the steel settle- ment? the president. I can't comment on the steel setdement until the big Court down the street acts.3 [4.] Q. Mr. President, you made a speech the other day on tidelands,4 which speech I believe brought forth com- ment— as you well know. I wonder if you would like to modify or clarify any state- ments that you made in that speech on tidelands ? the president. No. I said what I meant. * On June 2 the Supreme Court ruled the seizure of the steel plants unconstitutional. * See Item 129. 359 [136] May 22 Public Papers of the Presidents And I will go a little further with it when the bill comes to me. I don't like to com- ment on legislation until it is before me.5 Q. It hasn't come to you yet? the president. No. I haven't seen it. [5.] Q. Mr. President, do you want to make your comments on tidelands a prece- dent for comment on the McCarran immi- gration bill ? 6 the president. No, I don't think I will, thank you. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, General Ridg- way 7 said yesterday he was not optimistic about the chances for real peace in Korea. Do you share that feeling, or can you elab- orate on that situation? the president. I have no comment on General Ridgway's statements. He of course knows more about the situation than anybody. [7.] Q. Mr. President, it has been sug- gested that your speech before the Amer- icans for Democratic Action was an implied criticism of Frank McKinney, chairman of the national committee. I just heard that the president. Oh well, you hear all sorts of things of that sort. It wasn't at all. Q. It was not? the president. No indeed. I have every confidence in Frank McKinney. He is a good chairman. Q. Mr. President, do you have any com- ment, sir, on the statement Chairman Mc- Kinney made once in Chicago, saying that he hoped that there would be a compromise civil rights plank the president. I don't know anything about that, so I can't comment on it. [8.] Q. Mr. President, in a poll of cor- 5 For the President's statement upon vetoing the bill concerning title to offshore lands, see Item 146. 6 For the President's statement upon vetoing the bill to revise the Immigration and Nationality Act, see Item 182. 7 Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, former United Na- tions Commander in Korea and former Commander in Chief of the Far East Command. respondents, they showed their sagacity by picking Eisenhower for the Republican side and Stevenson 8 on the Democratic side, do you share their sagacity the president. I am, as you know, a little prejudiced against polls, and I wouldn't like to make a comment. [Laughter'] [9.] Q. Mr. President, the Senate, as you know, sir, has confirmed Federal Judge McGranery for Attorney General the president. Which they should have done without all the "hooey." He should have been confirmed immediately when his name went down there. He has been con- firmed twice before the Senate.9 Q. That wasn't exactly the answer — [Laughter] the president. Well, go ahead and ask your question — go ahead and ask your ques- tion, and I will answer it. Q. In view of that development, sir, would you like to resurvey with us today plans for the so-called clean-up drive in the Depart- ment of Justice ? the president. No, I would not. That will take care of itself when the Attorney General takes charge — and don't worry about it. Q. Mr. President, it has been suggested, since there has been this delay, that there won't be time to do anything. Is that cor- rect in your mind ? the president. Why no, of course not. The Attorney General will do his job. It makes no difference whether he has a month or 90 days or 3 months to work in. He is going to be a good Attorney General. I am making a prophecy. And I have had 8 General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Governor Adlai E. Stevenson of Illinois. 9 James P. McGranery had previously been the Assistant to the Attorney General and a Federal court judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, both of which positions required Senate confirma- tion. He was nominated as Attorney General on April 3 and confirmed by the Senate on May 20. Mr. Mc- Granery was sworn in as Attorney General of the United States on May 27, 1952. 360 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 22 [136] a lot of good Attorneys General. [Long pause here] Well, well — struck a dry hole, have we? [Laughter] [10.] Q. Mr. President, are we overlook- ing something? the president. Well, I don't know whether you are or not. I thought maybe you might have some very penetrating ques- tions to ask this morning. I was ready to answer them. But you don't seem to care about them. Q. Which ones do you suggest, Mr. Pres- ident? [Laughter] the president. I am not asking the Presi- dent any questions! [11.] Q. Mr. President, do you think that Governor Stevenson could be "had" or could be persuaded the president. That's a question I can't answer. [Laughter] Q. I had better finish the question — if he could be persuaded to take the Democratic nomination? the president. I don't know how to an- swer that question, because I don't know. Q. Mr. President, I don't want to seem to be asking too many questions the president. Go ahead. Q. there seems to be a belief that you are not very enthusiastic about Senator Kefauver for the Democratic nomination? the president. I have said, I think three different times, that I like every man who has come out for the Presidency, and should any one of them be nominated, I will do everything I possibly can to see that he is elected. And I have started already to see that a Democratic President is elected. Q. And that will include Senator Ke- fauver? the president. Includes everybody that has come out. [12.] Q. Mr. President, I know you don't like to comment on legislation until it comes to you, but I was wondering if you had any comments to make on the action of the Senate Banking Committee delimit- ing the Walsh-Healey Act? 10 the president. Well, of course, that has to go before the Senate. That is only a committee report. The Senate has to de- bate it and act on it, and so does the House; and I wouldn't be in any position to com- ment on a committee report. [13.] Q. Mr. President, would you com- ment on the situation in California as re- gards the delegates out there? the president. No, I would not com- ment on it at all. That is California's busi- ness, and not mine. [14.] Q. Mr. President, going back to the railroad strike, you commented that both labor and management wanted seizure. the president. That's correct. Q. Has there been any consideration in the administration of asking for a seizure law that will have "teeth" in it so neither side will want it and neither side will try and use it? the president. I have been trying ever since I have been President to get a law on the books that would make it possible for real negotiation to go on between labor and management. I haven't been able to get it. Q. Would that include the right of seizure? the president. There would have to be some means to keep the country running in cases like railroads or any industry that af- fects the whole economy of the country. And seizure seems to be the only ultimate end to things when they can't get together. Q. When they cannot get together, there will be some provision for seizure. Now the president. There must be some pro- 10 The amendments to the Walsh-Healey Act as recommended by the Committee on Banking and Currency are printed in Senate Report "To Amend and Extend the Defense Production Act of 1950" (S. Rept. 1599, 82d Cong.). On June 30, the President approved the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952 which in- cluded amendments to the Walsh-Healey Act (66 Stat. 308). 361 [136] May 22 Public Papers of the Presidents vision to meet the situation. Whether seizure is the answer or not, I don't know. That is what we have had to use, because that is the only thing we had. Q. Who would have that authority? The President would have that as statutory power in reserve, or would you have him go to Congress at each emergency? the president. The President has the power, and they can't take it away from him. [15.] Q. Mr. President, there was a new arrangement announced last night regard- ing copper prices.11 Do you wish to comment? the president. No. I have not received the papers on it yet. I will comment on it when I know all the details, but I haven't received the papers on it. [16.] Q. Mr. President, in his talk to the National Press Club, Mr. Harriman 12 said that he thought that he was the best candi- date for President and had every confidence in his own ability. 'Do you think that sort of self-confidence goes for all the candidates ? the president. That is what every candi- date for President ought to believe. If he doesn't believe that, he has no business in the race. I proved that in 1948! [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, do you think a man is likely to receive the nomination and election who doesn't aspire to it? the president. Well, you never can tell. I think I told you a story about the Republi- can convention of 1880, when a man was nominated who was not even a candidate. And that same thing happened in 1944 when they nominated a Vice President. They nominated a man who was not even a can- didate for it, and he is President now. [17.] Q. Mr. President, as I understood u Acting Director of the Office of Defense Mobi- lization John R. Steelman, in an effort to comply with Chile's demands on copper prices, ordered the ceiling on United States imports lifted, thereby allowing United States importers to pay a free market price. 12 W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security. you to say that the President has the power, that is, of seizure the president. That's correct. Q. and "they" can't take it away the president. That's correct. Q. who did you mean, sir, Con- gress THE PRESIDENT. Yes Q. the courts, who? the president. nobody can take it away from the President, because he is the Chief Executive of the Nation, and he has to be in a position to see that the welfare of the people is met. You study your history. You start with Washington and then Jefferson and then Andrew Jackson, and then Abraham Lin- coln— you want to read very carefully Sand- burg's 13 Abraham Lincoln, if you want to find out really what it amounts to — and President Hayes, and President "Teddy" Roosevelt, President Wilson, and President Roosevelt, and the present occupant of the White House, have taken whatever steps are necessary to meet an emergency when it comes to the country. And that is what the Executive is supposed to do. Q. Mr. President, may we have his ques- tion read back to us, please sir? the president. Why sure. Ask it again. Q. I will ask it again sir, and I would want to press a little further. the president. Go ahead. Q. You said the President has this power, talking about seizure, and "they* can't take it away the president. Nobody can take it away from him. Q. and that means the courts the president. You can put "they" in any place you want to, but nobody can take it away. Q. Isn't that what is up before the Supreme Court now? the president. No, I don't think so. No. As you will find out when the decision comes down. 13 Carl Sandburg. 362 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 22 [136] Q. It might lead to some confusion. Would you explain THE PRESIDENT. I have Q. what you feel is before the Court the president. 1 have no explanation to make, because I am not going to com- ment on what the Court is going to do. Q. No. No, I am not asking you to do that, but you see, as it stands now, it ap- pears that you have said the Court can't take the power away. the president. Nobody can take it away from the President, because it is inherent in the Constitution of the United States. I have cited you some precedents, now go and read them. Q. Would you explain, sir, not how they are going to rule, but what you feel is now before the Court? the president. I can't do that. That has been done by the attorneys for the Govern- ment. [18.] Q. If I could go back to Elmer Davis' 14 question, did you think he meant Eisenhower or Stevenson? the president. What was the question? Q. If a man who doesn't aspire to the Presidency should be nominated, I think that was the question. the president. I don't think he was re- ferring to anybody in particular. It might be Joe Doakes out in Missouri. [Laughter] [19.] Q. Mr. President, if we can be- labor this Supreme Court question the president. Go ahead. Q. because as Martin 15 said, it is going to leave things in doubt, you said they can't take it away from you. Now, first, it has been said that the Supreme Court might pass on that individual case without going into the constitutional aspects, but just — then again you have to break your own rule to answer the question — supposing the Supreme Court says the seizure was illegal, 14 Elmer H. Davis of the American Broadcast- ing Co. 15 Martin S. Hayden of the Detroit News. and just lets it go at that, where do we stand then ? That's the point the president. Well, Joe,16 I can't specu- late on what might happen after that. Let's wait and see what happens, and then you needn't be uneasy about the President acting as he sees fit. Q. No sir, I wasn't uneasy about the President, I was just uneasy about my desk wanting an explanation! the president. I will tell you what you do, Joe. You tell your editors to do their own speculating. Q. Mr. President, you said on a previous occasion on the same subject, that you would abide by whatever the president. That's correct. Q. d e c i s i o n the Supreme Court handed down. the president. That is exactly what I ex- pect to do. Q. Well, getting back to Joe's question, if the Court hands down a decision that you do not have that power, would you the president. I will turn the steel com- panies— turn the steel industry back to the companies, and see what happens. Q. Mr. President, would it not be possible for people to amend the Constitution and put in there that the President does not have these inherent rights? the president. Yes, but I don't think they will do it. Q. They are likely to do it by law. the president. What's that? Q. Likely to do it by law, sir ? the president. It has to be signed by the President. [Laughter] Q. There is such a thing as going over the President's veto. the president. Oh yes, it has been tried many a time. I think I have had more vetoes than any other President except Grover Cleveland. And his number of vetoes was caused by pension bills. Mine have been caused by substantive legislative acts which I didn't like. 16 Joseph A. Fox of the Washington Star. 363 [136] May 22 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Now they probably will tack it on the Defense Production Act? the president. If they do that, then let's see what happens. Q. Mr. President, I would just like to sug- gest, sir, that it does sound as if you are pre- judging the Supreme Court the president. Oh no I'm not, Eddie.17 Q. [Inaudible] President has the seizure power and nobody can take it away from him. the president. That's correct, but I am not prejudging the Supreme Court. I am going to abide by their action, whatever that action may be. Q. Mr. President, suppose they say that you haven't the inherent power? the president. Well, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. Q. Didn't you say at another point you did not think that was the question before the Court? the president. Well, let's not argue about what is before the Court. Let the Court do its own arguing. They have heard the case on both sides, and I guess they will argue among themselves now, and then we will get a decision after awhile — I hope. Q. Well, Mr. President, does it make any difference in your thinking that Judge Pine directed his decision against Secretary Sawyer rather than against the President? 18 17 Edward T. Folliard of the Washington Post. 18 The Supreme Court was reviewing the April 29 decision made by Judge David A. Pine in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the seizure of the steel plants could not be supported by statute nor by the Constitution. Judge Pine stated that the court ordered Secretary of Com- merce Charles Sawyer to end the Government possession. the president. I haven't read Judge Pine's decision, and I don't intend to read it. That's a matter for the Court. [20.] Q. Mr. President, you were speak- ing awhile ago about the labor law you have been trying to get through. That refers back, I take it, sir, to that request used on Congress about 5 years ago, for a law that would provide in substance for a cooling off period in all the heavy industries, as I recall, steel and automobile 19 the president. That's correct. That's correct. We oughtn't to have strikes in the fundamental industries if they can be avoided. I think there's a way to avoid them. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's three hundred and fifth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 10:35 a-m« on Thursday, May 22, 1952. Shortly after the conference, Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President, gave the Official Reporter the following addendum: "In a conversation with the President immediately following this press conference, the President said that his point was this: "Neither the Congress nor the courts could deny the inherent powers of the Presidency without tear- ing up the Constitution. The President said that the Supreme Court, in the pending steel case, might properly decide that the conditions existing did not justify the use by the President of his inherent powers, but that such a decision would not deny the existence of the inherent powers. "I would like to make it clear that the President would not have seized the steel mills had he not believed that he was taking a legal step. At the time of this press conference he did not anticipate that the Court would decide otherwise than that he had acted properly. The illustration which he used in talking privately to me was an illustra- tion, and nothing more." 19 See 1945 volume, this series, Item 204. 137 Message to the Congress Transmitting 68th Annual Report of the U.S. Civil Service Commission. May 23, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the annual re- port of the Civil Service Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 195 1. Our national defense effort has necessi- tated a rapid, temporary expansion in Fed- 364 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 23 [138] eral employment, particularly in the three military departments. Adapting the civil service system to meet these emergency con- ditions has involved many difficult problems. Nevertheless, I directed that the temporary expansion of the civil service be accom- plished, to the maximum extent possible, on the basis of open competitive examinations. I am pleased that the Civil Service Commis- sion has performed a highly creditable job in this regard, although I am most desirous that the method of making appointments through the competitive merit system be strengthened and extended as rapidly as conditions permit. In meeting the urgent personnel needs of the Federal service, the Civil Service Com- mission has drawn increasingly upon women, older workers, and the physically handicapped. I am glad to note, too, that veterans constituted approximately 50 per- cent of the placements made during the last fiscal year. With respect to the legislative recommen- dations contained in the Commission's an- nual report, I should like to call attention to some of the measures which will be of espe- cial value in strengthening the civil service system. 1. The Senate has already approved S. 1 135, 82d Congress, the proposed Federal Personnel Recruitment Act, providing for modernization of examining and recruit- ment procedures. I am hopeful that the House of Representatives will give favorable consideration to this legislation. 2. I have repeatedly recommended to the Congress the elimination of the requirement for Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of postmasters. This recom- mendation is carried forward in Reorgani- zation Plan No. 2 of 1952, which is now before the Congress. In addition, Reorgani- zation Plans No. 3 and 4 of 1952 will bring customs officials and United States marshals into the competitive service. Approval of these three reorganization plans will do much to strengthen our civil service merit system. 3. Operating experience under the Classi- fication Act of 1949 has demonstrated a need for a larger number of positions in grades 16, 17 and 18 of the general schedule. Existing limitations on the number of positions for these grades have constituted a serious ad- ministrative problem. I again urge the Con- gress to take action to relieve this situation. 4. As a step toward improving the effi- ciency of the Federal service, the Congress should provide authority for Government agencies to assign selected personnel to edu- cational institutions and other organizations for professional and technical training. 5. Unemployment compensation coverage should be extended to include Federal em- ployees. This is particularly important in view of the provisions for reduction of an- nual leave benefits which have been enacted into law during the past year. While these legislative recommendations are of considerable importance, there are many other areas in which the Congress and the Executive branch must work together to improve the efficiency and character of the civil service. Through our mutual efforts, I am sure we will continue to solve the many complex problems involved in securing and retaining the best qualified personnel to con- duct the public business. Harry. S. Truman note: The report of the Civil Service Commission is printed in House Document 281 (82c! Cong., 2d sess.). 138 Special Message to the Congress Upon Signing Bills Relating to Veterans' Benefits. May 23, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I have today approved H.R. 4387, "To increase the annual income limitations gov- erning the payment of pension to certain veterans and their dependents," and H.R. 4394, "To provide certain increases in the 365 [138] May 23 Public Papers of the Presidents monthly rates of compensation and pension payable to veterans and their dependents, and for other purposes." These are com- panion bills designed to provide for veterans and members of their families a financial ofTset to rises in the cost of living. The bills are applicable to those who draw com- pensation for service-connected disability and to those who are on the pension rolls as a result of non-service-connected disa- bilities. H.R. 4387 has been justified primarily on the ground that the income limitations now governing eligibility for non-service-con- nected pensions have not been raised since the logo's when the present limits were established. I agree that the cost of living has risen markedly since these limits of $1,000 in the case of a veteran without de- pendents, and $2,500 in the case of a veteran with dependents were established, but it is only with great reluctance that I have signed this measure. I would not have done so if there were available any other practical means of lessening economic pressures upon those veterans and their dependents who have come to rely on pensions as their chief means of support. Basically, I believe that H.R. 4387 and those provisions of H.R. 4394 which pertain to non-service-connected pensions are bad legislation from the point of view of our long-run objectives. Their enactment will give still another excuse to defer facing up to a difficult decision which we must make in the course of a relatively few years. There was no social security system when the veterans pension laws were passed. When the social security law was enacted in 1935, the world was at peace and the fact that we were establishing a basic economic security system along side the existing benefit program for veterans seemed comparatively unimportant. Litde attention was paid to the 839,000 cases receiving pension and com- pensation from the Veterans Administration in 1935, and since then no major steps have been taken to integrate and relate the two systems of benefits. I have pointed out several times in the past my belief that our first obligation to our veterans is to care for those who have disa- bilities resulting directly from their service to their country. Financial assistance to vet- erans with non-service-connected disabilities, on the other hand, should be put as soon as possible on the same basis as financial assist- ance payable to the non-veterans of our population. World War II left us with over 19,000,000 veterans. World events since then mean that hundreds of thousands more will be added each year. At the same time, we have expanded and perfected our social secu- rity laws so that they now protect most of our people. The consequences are obvious. Thousands upon thousands of veterans and their families have entitlement to Govern- ment payments under both laws. This is confusing, wasteful, and, to many people, hard to understand. Within the next few decades, the relaxa- tion of eligibility standards for pensions un- der H.R. 4387 will cost over $200 million a year. The increase in non-service-connected pension rates under H.R. 4394 will also cost about $200 million a year ultimately. Nei- ther of these estimates takes into account the large increase in the veterans population which appears certain. These cost factors, as well as the inequities of present duplica- tion in benefits, make it clear that this is a national problem to which the Congress should give thorough study. I strongly urge the Congress to authorize at this session a complete study of our vet- erans benefit programs and their relation- ships with our social insurance and other general welfare programs. I assure the Con- gress that it will have the full support and assistance of the Executive Branch in making such a study. Harry S. Truman note: As enacted, H.R. 4394 is Public Law 356, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 90), and H.R. 4387 is Pub- lic Law 357, 82d Congress (66 Stat. 91). 366 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 23 [140] 139 Statement by the President: Memorial Day. May 23, 1952 MEMORIAL DAY has been traditionally a day of prayer for those Americans who have died in the defense of their country. On May 23, 1950, pursuant to a joint res- olution of the Congress, I proclaimed each succeeding Memorial Day as a day of prayer for permanent peace, and suggested 11 o'clock in the morning, eastern standard time, as an appropriate time for each Amer- ican, according to his own religious faith, to beg Divine aid in bringing enduring peace to a troubled world. I believe that this year enduring peace is more nearly attainable than a year ago. This is so because our strength and the strength of other free Nations has steadily grown. Our strength and determination to remain free are leading to peace. On this Memorial Day we should again pay tribute to the men who, by their su- preme sacrifice, have helped maintain our freedom in the rugged hills of Korea and, before that, in the great wars when all man- kind was threatened with enslavement. We should pay tribute to them especially because they have shown that aggression cannot pay off. They have thereby given the world a vision and a promise of lasting peace. We must not let these men down now that the goal is so nearly attainable. I have asked before, and I ask again, that the press, radio, television, and other media of public information help unite the Nation on the morning of Memorial Day in a uni- versal prayer for permanent peace. 140 Memorandum on Proposed Bills Dealing With Treaties May 23, 1952 and Executive Agreements. To all Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Subject: S.J. Res. 122 — "to impose limita- tions with regard to executive agree- ments"— and S.J. Res. 130 — "proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to the making of treaties and making of executive agree- ments." The two Senate joint resolutions referred to above have been called to my attention. These resolutions concern matters which di- rectly affect the activities and responsibilities of almost every department and agency of the executive branch. A sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Judiciary began hearings on S.J. Res. 130 on May 21. I am advised that the executive departments and agencies have not been invited to appear before the committee or to present their views concerning the resolution. In a matter of such fundamental importance it is vital that the Congress know the views of the executive branch. Accordingly, I request the head of each department and agency to examine the effects which these joint resolutions would have on matters coming under the jurisdiction of his depart- ment or agency, and to prepare an official, statement of views concerning them. I also request the head of each department and agency to ask the Committee promptly for an opportunity to appear and testify at the earliest practicable date. The White House staff will cooperate in any way that may be desired in this matter. Any agency which believes that it is not affected directly enough by the resolutions to warrant presentation of its views with respect to them, is requested to send me, at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than one week from the receipt of this memorandum, its reasons for not seek- ing to testify. 367 [140] May 23 Public Papers of the Presidents The importance of the issues raised cannot be over-estimated. The constitutional amendment proposed in S.J. Res. 130 is not routine, and it is not limited in its effect to the imposition of restraints upon the Presi- dent or agencies of the executive branch. This proposed amendment and the provi- sions of S.J. Res. 122 vitally affect the powers of the Federal Government as a whole and have a bearing on the welfare of every State and every person in our country. Action by the Congress on either of these resolutions should not be taken without the fullest con- sideration and debate. The executive branch has a responsibility to see to it that it does not default on its responsibilities as a part of the Federal struc- ture which was created by all of the States at the time our Constitution was adopted. Harry S. Truman note: S.J. Res. 122 was referred to the Senate Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, S.J. Res. 130 to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Neither reso- lution was voted on by the Senate. 141 Letter to the Secretary of the Army Directing Him To Terminate Control of the Railroads. May 23, 1952 Dear Mr. Secretary: The labor disputes underlying the issu- ance of Executive Order No. 10141, dated July 8, 1950, and Executive Order No. 10 155, dated August 25, 1950, have now been set- tled and interruptions in normal rail service no longer threaten. It is, accordingly, in order for you to initiate immediate steps for the termination of possession, control and operation of the transportation systems affected by the above mentioned Executive Orders to become ef- fective at the earliest feasible moment. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable, The Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.] note: For the President's statements upon issuing the Executive orders, see 1950 volume, this series, Items 188, 221. See also Item 136 [2], this volume. 142 Remarks in Annapolis at a Luncheon in the Midshipmen's Mess Hall. May 24, 1952 I AM very happy, indeed, to be here today. I have had a chance to meet all of you, and to renew my acquaintance with your great Academy. It has always been my custom, when I take a review, to check on the march- ing ability of the different companies, and end up with number one, number two, and number three. As I told your brigade com- mander, they were all so good, I couldn't pick a number one. They were all number one. Many years ago, more years than I like to think about, in fact just 50 years ago, I was offered an appointment to this Academy and I couldn't pass the physical examination. I had a flat eyeball and couldn't see. We used to play neighborhood pigtail baseball, and they always made me the umpire on that account. However, since I couldn't follow this career in the Navy, I had to go into other lines of work — among other things I went into politics, and you see where I ended up. The President, you know, has to function in four or five different capacities. He is the Chief Executive of the Nation and the head of state — he makes the foreign policy of the country; and he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces; he is the head of his party; and he is the social head of state — he has to meet all the visiting fire- men that come to pay official visits to the 368 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 24 [142] United States, and it is a most interesting procedure. Well now, I am going to function in two of my capacities today. I shall exercise the authority of the President, as the head of the Government of the United States, to grant a reprieve to those midshipmen who unfortunately may now be required to per- form extra duty, or suffer punishments as a result of having made some demerits. [Prolonged applause'] The order is not finished yet — you had better hear the rest of it. As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I direct Admiral Hill to carry out the President's order. Now that is a prerogative — I don't think any other President has ever done that here at Annapolis, but they have crowned heads and royalty, when they come; they have been doing it; and they haven't got any authority to do it. The only man in the United States who can pardon anybody for anything but im- peachment— and the reason he can't do that is because that would be himself — is the President of the United States. The Con- stitution gives him absolute pardon power. So I am exercising it today. And I exer- cised it the other day at West Point. And I have to exercise that power right along. You would be surprised how many pardons and paroles and commutations of sentences go over the President's desk every day. They are part of the things that con- tribute to the fact that the President signs his name 600 times a day. So I ought to know pretty well how to write. This 6th of June will be graduation day here. All of you will be promoted that day, and I know you are looking forward to it. However, the 6th of June has a deeper significance. This year is the 10th anni- versary of our great naval victory at Midway. That battle occurred on the 4th, 5th, and 6th of June. The Batde of Midway was the decisive turning point of the Pacific war. Our forces were able to inflict death blows on Japan's four best aircraft carriers. The Japanese were never again able to regain the offensive. Admirals Fletcher and Spru- ance handled our naval forces at the Midway battle with great skill, but the final blows were struck by the young men whose cour- age and ability must be remembered as an inspiration here and throughout the Navy. Your graduation is also the 55th anni- versary of the Class of 1897. Among those distinguished graduates was Admiral of the Fleet William D. Leahy. He was Chief of Naval Operations, he was Governor of Puerto Rico, he was Ambassador to France, and he was Chief of Staff to President Roose- velt and to me in World War II. That is a magnificent record. I wish he was here so he could hear what I have to say about it. I am sorry he isn't. Here today at lunch are fathers in the Class of 1922, to celebrate their 30th anni- versary with their midshipmen sons. The tradition and the understanding that you derive from the lessons of history are among the most important things you take with you when you graduate. I am happy to see you young men have accepted service to your country as a career. There is no higher calling. I have been in the service of my country 30 years. I was elected to my first office in November 1922, and when January first comes, I will have been in elective public office for 30 years. Now, whether I rendered any service or not, you will have to wait and see what the results of this last office will turn out to be. You will find your reward in your coun- try's appreciation, and in your personal satis- faction for work well done. The purpose of our great academies — here and at West Point — is to develop leadership. In order to be a successful leader you must learn about people, and about how to work in harmony and cooperation with others. Do you know what makes a leader? It's the man or woman who can persuade people to do what they ought to do — and which they sometimes don't do — without being persuaded. They also must have the ability 369 [142] May 24 Public Papers of the Presidents to persuade people to do what they do not want to do and like it. That, in my opinion, is the best definition of leadership. If you young men will develop the ability, on the basis of the education you have had here, you can all be leaders. And I want to say to you that there is always a dearth of leaders. Don't let anybody tell you that the positions at the top in any organization, be it military or civilian — that all the good places are gone and they can't be filled. They are always hunting for good men. The higher up you get the harder it is to find a man to fill them. So, put yourselves in the position so that when your turn comes you will be in a posi- tion to do the job which is ahead of you, and do it successfully. Then you will have had a successful career in the one you have picked out. Our great academies have proved success- fully that they can train the kind of leaders our country needs. And if I had the time I could name you some of them — you probably know who they are, anyway. There have been an immense number of great leaders who have come out of these two great schools. I sincerely appreciate the honor you paid the President this morning by your splendid review. I have also enjoyed a chance to talk with some of you at lunch today. I will enjoy seeing the baseball game — in spite of the fact that I will have to be neutral — and the track meet this afternoon. I know that whichever team wins, these events will be examples of friendly rivalry and the mutual spirit of respect and friendship between our two great service academies. I want to thank you again for a most pleasant day, and I appreciated the fact that I had a chance to have lunch with the mid- shipmen. I appreciate that fact, because I am anxious to know just what these young men are doing, and what they are thinking about. And I think I have found out. [Laughter] That is one of the things they are interested in, of course; but they are in- terested in being of service to their country,, and that is why they are here. I congratulate this wonderful body of menr and I know that the future of the country is safe when I see such wonderful young men who are willing to pursue a career for the Government of the United States. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:35 p.m. in Bancroft Hall at the United States Naval Academy in An- napolis, Md. During his remarks he referred to Vice Adm. Harry W. Hill, Superintendent of the Academy, Adm. Frank J. Fletcher, Adm. Raymond A. Spruance, and Admiral of the Fleet William D, Leahy. 143 Address Before the Electric Consumers Conference. May 26, 1952 I AM more than happy to meet with this conference of farm, labor, and consumer groups. I am a little bit hoarse — I have been talking to the "Big Four," two Members of the House and two Members of the Senate. I couldn't afford to let them out-talk me. What Mr. Lincoln has said is true for the 155 million people. You know, we have some distinguished Senators and Representatives in this town who represent the consumers in their districts, but I am the only person who represents the whole 155 million — the people who haven't any pull or any lobby. I am their pull and I am their lobbyist. They know how to get to me, and I try to help them as best I can. And you have two gentlemen here who are looking out for the interests of the people. I can tell you that. I know. You have come out here to protect the interests of the American people in their own electric power resources. I want to empha- size that these power resources belong to the people of the United States, and not to any- body else. You are here as consumers, as people who 370 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 26 [143] need and want electric power for your homes, farms, and businesses. I hope this conference will speak out for the interest of power consumers. That is most important. There is a terrible barrage of propaganda going around these days on behalf of the poor private power producers. These poor private power monopolies are asking for a fight. And I hope you will give it to them. And I will join you in it. One of the first things I got into when I came here to the United States Senate in 1935 was to be on Senator Wheeler's holding company committee. I presided over it part of the time, and I heard all the weeps and wails and everything that is possible from the people who are trying to repeat just what they were doing at that time. We passed the Holding Company Act, and that Hold- ing Company Act was in the interest of the people and the consumers. Now, let's keep that interest up, because it is absolutely nec- essary. I hope you will figure out ways and means of answering their propaganda, and of show- ing the American people and the Congress what the real facts are. Propaganda can never face facts. I proved that conclusively in 1948. This won't be easy. The private power companies are spending millions and mil- lions of dollars on their propaganda pro- gram. They have hired a lot of high-priced talent, advertising agencies and so-called public opinion research organizations, and they are running what I call a most vicious campaign. And I haven't got anything, now, against private ownership of industry. I want to see the industries of this country in the hands of private ownership. But I don't want that private ownership — which is pardy a public institution — to have the throat-hold on the people whom they serve. That's all I am fighting. That private power company propaganda campaign is based on the old theory of scare the people, of trying to frighten and confuse them, instead of arguing on the basis of facts. There is no question that this is the theory of the power companies' vicious prop- aganda. They say so themselves, in the literature they distribute privately among themselves. You see, they went about this very sci- entifically. First, they started out with a public opinion survey — one of those Roper surveys, you know — or Gallup, either one, I don't care which one you take. When I think about public opinion sur- veys, I always remember what Mr. Roper said on the 9th day of September 1948. He said, "I am taking no more polls, I am making no more comments, because the elec- tion is over and there's no use holding — really holding an election, or going to the expense of holding one, might as well swear Mr. Dewey in now and be done with it." He has been apologizing about that ever since. You see, they went about this very scien- tifically. First, they started out with a pub- lic opinion survey. They asked a lot of people what they thought of TVA. And most people said it was a wonderful thing. Then they asked people what they thought of public power, and most people said that was all right, too. Well, this surprised the power companies, but it didn't surprise me, and I don't sup- pose it surprised anyone here. It simply meant that most people know what is good for them, when they have the facts in front of them. Then the company agents asked people what they thought of socialism and of course most people said we are "agin" it. Natu- rally, they would say that. You of course know the tale about a couple of men discussing socialism. One of them was a socialist and the other one was not. The first man said, "Sam, if you had a million dollars, would you divide it with me?" 'Sure," said Sam. :TT7~11 " said John, "if you had two pigs, "Well," 371 [143] May 26 Public Papers of the Presidents would you give me one of them?" Sam said, "Now John, you know I've got a couple of pigs." At this point the private companies said, "Aha, what we have to do is convince the people that TVA and public power, and all the things the people think are good for them, are all part of some big plot to socialize the country." You see, my political opponents don't have any issues on which to hang their hats, and so they go out and dig up some things that they use for propaganda. And social- ism is one of them. And these power com- panies, and the American Medical Associa- tion, are just tickled to death to have a thing like that and go around talking about that, but they don't tell you the facts. That is exactly what they have been trying to do ever since they made those surveys. The private power companies are spend- ing millions and millions of dollars on this campaign. They are sponsoring nationwide radio programs which cost them many thousands of dollars every week. They are running full-page ads in the big magazines, month after month. Do you know that just one full-page ad in Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce's Life magazine costs $17,000? And in one big corporation-controlled Saturday Evening Post, it costs $12,000? They are turning out pamphlets and leaflets and canned editorials by the score, and spreading them around the country. And one of their advertising agencies actually boasted that their technique was so successful that ministers included some of this propaganda with their church notices, and some of their propaganda was posted on bulletin boards of the Boy Scouts. What these private power companies are actually doing is deliberately and in cold blood setting out to poison the minds of the people. They make no bones about it. Their own manuals say that their purpose is to influence the mass mind in this country by playing on people's emotions. The "mass mind" — what a horrible phrase. I think it's one of the most horrible phrases in the language. They think of the individual human beings in this great coun- try as parts of a mass mind. They set out to play upon the emotions of churchgoers, Boy Scouts, and schoolchildren. They try to control people's thoughts by using slogans and scare words. They have taken a leaf right out of the books of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. They are following the Soviet and the Fascist lines. This is nothing less than an attack on the fundamental principles of our democratic country. Instead of letting people make up their own minds on the basis of the facts and the truth, this private power company propa- ganda is deliberately designed to conceal the facts, and to manipulate people's opinions by appealing to their emotions and not to their reason. Now I have got an ad here out of a maga- zine, paid for by the Wisconsin Power and Light Company, and it says, "Do you want to pay for a Government honeymoon at Niagara Falls ? " Then they try to make you believe that the power companies would like to build — control the power at Niagara Falls, and to do it in the public interest and with- out any cost to the public. Now, if you believe that, you are more naive than I think you are. They don't stop to think that an invest- ment of the Federal Government in a propo- sition of that kind is an investment for the people of the whole United States. And it is an investment and a self-liquidating investment. I want to say to you that these great power dams which we have built in the Northwest and in the TVA are an investment that be- longs to the people of the United States — and the people are getting the benefit from them. Now, I don't object to the power com- panies making a profit, but I do object to their skinning the life out of the people. In this ad here, they don't say anything about profits. They imply that if the private power people could build this, there wouldn't be any cost to the public at all. Well now, you know what the cost would 372 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 26 [143] be. You all remember the North American Holding Company, and you all remember the Electric Bond and Share, which had 163 companies, and even Hopson himself couldn't tell which end of him was up when he got up on the witness stand before that committee. The same thing was true of all the rest of these things. Now what they are trying to do is restore that situation. These power companies are public in- stitutions. There is not a single one of them in the cities that is not a monopoly. And they are there because the people allow them to be there. They are regulated by the pub- lic service commissions of the States, and they owe a duty to the public. I wonder why they don't talk about Ne- braska; and Seattle, Washington; and Ta- coma; and Kansas City, Kansas; and Independence, Missouri? You know, we have a municipal plant on each side of the Kansas City Power and Light Company, and that is the only way we have been able to keep the rates of the Kansas City Power and Light Company at a reasonable figure. When I was running the county back there, we used to assess these people. I went into the situation as to how they performed. Now they had one set of figures on which they paid taxes, and they had another set of figures which was four or five times as great as the ones on which they paid taxes, on which they based the rates. I tried my best to get the legislature of Missouri to see that rates and taxes ought to be on the same figures, but they had too big a pull in the Missouri legislature, and I couldn't get it done. Now I am not going to go into this thing in detail because sometime soon, when the whistlestop campaign starts, I am going to go out and give you all the facts with regard to this power situation. Nebraska hasn't a single private power company in it — they are all municipally owned. You don't hear them talk about that. Seattle owns its plant. Tacoma owns its plant, and I told you about the Kansas City, Kansas, and Independence, Missouri, keeping Kansas City, Missouri, out of a strait) acket. I think that you people ought to do every- thing you possibly can to get the facts on such things as this. And I think also there may be something going wrong under the Corrupt Practices Act, through the rates that these companies charge — you are paying for that. You are paying for that. And the tax collections of the Government are not so great because they charge these off as ex- penses of operation. I think I will ask the Attorney General, when he gets in office — and I have had a hard time getting an Attorney General — to take a look at this situation and see if the Corrupt Practices Act doesn't apply. You know, I didn't intend to make you a political speech, but since I have got to that point about the Attorney General, I can't help but make a remark that they are always saying that there is corruption in the Govern- ment. Well now, there is no such thing. There have been several collectors and one or two other fellows gone wrong, and when- ever it has come to the attention of the Presi- dent, he has fired him and ordered a grand jury investigation; and some of them are being prosecuted and some of them have already been sentenced to penalties. But they don't want to call attention to the fact that at one time before we did have corruption in Government, and it was at the top and nothing was done about it until a committee of the Senate dug up the Teapot Dome scandal and they had to go to work on it. Nobody has had to force me to do what is right to keep the Government straight and square — and never will have. I didn't come down here to talk about that, because that is another whistlestop subject I am going to discuss when this campaign starts. I am glad you are here. I am trying to call your attention to the fact that you are on the right track. And what I said to Murray Lincoln about the consumers not being rep- resented and their interest not being repre- 55-672—66- -27 373 [143] May 26 Public Papers of the Presidents sented — except by such Congressmen and Senators who really have the people's inter- ests at heart — should get themselves together and come down here, because there are so many more of you than there are of these private power companies. You can make them stand on their heads, if you want to. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 11:32 a.m. at the Willard Hotel in Washington. He had met earlier with Vice President Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, Ernest W. McFarland, Majority Leader of the Senate, Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and John W. McCormack, Majority Leader of the House of Representatives. During his remarks the President referred to Murray D. Lincoln, president and director of the Cooperative League of the United States, who served as chairman of the Electric Consumers Conference, national pollsters Elmo B. Roper, Jr., and George Gallup, and to Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York, candidate for President in the 1948 election on the Republican ticket. The President also referred to Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce, former Representative from Connecticut and wife of Henry R. Luce, Editor-in-Chief of Life maga- zine, James P. McGranery, Attorney General of the United States, and Howard C. Hopson who built an empire of gas and electric holding companies. 144 Address at a Dinner of the Jewish National Fund. May 26, 1952 Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Am- bassador, distinguished members of our High Court, Members of the Congress and the Cabinet, and ladies and gentlemen: It is a very, very great honor that has just been conferred upon me. I appreciate it most highly. I can't express my feelings. I don't think that as an individual I deserve all the nice things that have been said about me here tonight, but as the head of the Gov- ernment of the United States, I am perfectly willing to accept them. Mr. Vice President, that forest of yours will be very useful in the construction of this village. It will be in the same situation as at Dunsinane Forest which went to meet Macbeth, but this forest will not go for that same purpose, it will go for constructive pur- poses, and the wonderful reforestation that these good people keep up will last forever, and so will the village. Don't you worry about that middle initial of mine. That is a very good initial. It is the middle initial of Alben W. Barkley. And it stands for something. Now the initial that I have stands for nothing. A lot of people sometimes intentionally mispro- nounce it. The growth and progress of the new State of Israel are a source of great satisfaction to me. I had faith in Israel even before it was established. I knew it was based on the love of freedom, which has been the guiding star of the Jewish people since the days of Moses. I was sure that under the leadership of Presi- dent Weizmann, Israel would take its place in the family of nations as a strong supporter of the ideals of human freedom. And I certainly appreciate that message from the President, and if it is turned over to me as it has been promised, I will be certain to answer it myself — as I will the other great message which I received. Don't forget that. It was a great pleasure for me when you named one of the new villages of Israel after me. I have been very much interested in the growth and progress of that village. And you know, that tends to keep the Presi- dent on a straight and narrow path, where I hope I will never do anything to cause you to change the name of that village. Some day, when I don't have so much to do as I have now, I want to go to Israel and see Kfar Truman, and talk to those young farmers there. Perhaps they can teach me a few things about farming, and perhaps I can tell them a few things about the way we farm over here, although I will admit that I am 30 years out of practice in prac- 374 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 26 [144] tical, on-the-ground farming. But my brother, my sister, and myself still own the old home farm. Two of my nephews do as much work in this mechanical age as my brother and my father and myself with five helpers could do in one day. I hope that the people of Kfar Truman will have a wonderful future. But they will have to work for it, just as they have worked for the independence of their coun- try. But I know they will make their vil- lage a lasting example of what free men can do when they are united in a great cause. The people of the Truman village are very fortunate, of course, in having the Jewish National Fund behind them. Through that fund you have been working on the point 4 idea for 50 years. You have been buying land in Israel, reclaiming it, irrigating it, and planting trees on it. That was the farsighted way to build a new nation — start with the land itself. You have studied history. You realized that the whole area of the Near East, that had produced some of the greatest civiliza- tions of the world, was today able to support only a fraction of the people it once had. The trees were gone, the water was gone, some of the land was eroded away, and other parts were swamp and marsh. After 50 years, the founders of your orga- nization decided to correct this situation in Israel. The work you have done is an out- standing example of what can be done to help the people throughout the Near East to help themselves. That is what we are trying to do in our point 4 program. That is why I say the Jewish National Fund embarked on a point 4 program 50 years ago. I like to think that the first large-scale program of the Jew- ish National Fund was the reclamation of a desert valley called the Valley of Death. Today that valley is being brought back to life, and so is the whole of Israel. That is what point 4 programs can do throughout the world, if we have the courage and the good sense to go ahead with them. Our point 4 program is essential to our hopes for world peace. It is as important as our defense program. I have been doing all I can to work for peace, and to make friends and allies for this country abroad, and to do everything that I possibly can to make every nation in the world friendly with every other nation in the world. But there are some people who would rather play politics than have strong defenses. They would rather embarrass the White House than to checkmate the Kremlin. They have been playing a foolhardy game with the national security. It is a horribly terrible game that they are playing. It is one that should not be played in these emer- gency times. I am a politician, and I don't mind playing the game in the political field, but that game should be confined to our shores, and should not jeopardize the peace of the world. A few days ago, in the House of Repre- sentatives, they put an arbitrary limitation of $46 billion on our defense expenditures for the coming fiscal year. This was a foolish, reckless act. It jeopardizes our defense buildup. It may require us — in this hour of peril — to demobilize a substantial part of our Armed Forces. Think of that. And last Friday, 3 days ago, a majority of the Members of the House weakened our mutual security program, and just about wrecked point 4 in Asia. They may have thought they were merely cutting down the aid we give other countries. But, in fact, they were cutting down the protection — the security — that other countries can give us. They did not see — or they did not want to see — that they were endangering the lives of American boys, and the safety of American cities and American farms. In the House on Friday there were two terrible cuts, one in the defense of Europe against communism, the other in the de- fenses of the free nations of Asia against communism. I don't know what they were thinking about. I don't think they knew what they are doing. But I know the effect of what they actually did. The majority of the House picked the two places in the world 375 [144] May 26 Public Papers of the Presidents where the danger is greatest, where the Com- munist threat is strongest, and they did their bit to help the Communist side. Let me tell you what happened as far as Europe is concerned. They cut nearly a billion out of the arms aid to Europe. They cut about 800 millions out of defense support aid to Europe. This means that the free na- tions of Europe will not be able to raise and equip the forces they need — the forces we need — to defend the West against Soviet power. They will not have the arms from us, and they will not have the economic aid they need to produce the arms themselves. This undermines the defenses of the North Atlantic community. It undermines the work of General Eisenhower. It under- mines the job General Ridgway has just gone to Europe to do. Then look what they did to Asia. The House voted to cut economic aid and point 4 aid to Asia by well over $100 million. And then they voted a crazy, crippling amend- ment to the point 4 program. This amend- ment will tie the administration of the point 4 program into knots. Worse than that, it will cut the point 4 program in Asia by about $50 million more. This undermines our hopes to build up strong, self-reliant governments in the free nations of Asia. It opens the way to Com- munist subversion in these countries. Take the case of India. India hasn't enough to eat. It needs to grow more food. The Indian Government proposes to put on a 5-year program that will bring food pro- duction up to the necessary level. This is a forced-draft program, to do in 5 years what would ordinarily take a generation. But it is the best way to keep India from falling into the hands of the Communists. We agreed to help in this program. This year our share was to be about $100 million, but under the bill the House passed last Friday, we probably would not be able to do more than $25 million worth of help. And the people who led the fight — now listen to this, this is good, for these meat axe cuts in Asia are the very same people who howl the loudest about losing China to the Commu- nists— now I wonder, do they want to save India from the fate of China, or would they rather let India be gobbled up by the Com- munists too, so they can have another calamity to blame on the administration? Now let's take the case of Iran. The Soviet Union last Friday sent them a threat- ening note. It warned the Iranians against taking any more military aid from the United States. And what was the response of the United States House of Representa- tives? On that very same day they passed this amendment to the point 4 program that will have the effect of cutting the program for Iran in half. That is real leadership — that is standing right up to the Soviets. I want to say a word right here about those Members of the House, mostly Demo- crats with a few Republicans, who voted against these cuts. They are standing up for their country, and they are standing up for the peace of the world. Especially I want to express my gratitude to the wise and courageous Speaker of the House, who is here tonight. If all the peo- ple in the United States Congress were like Sam Rayburn, this would be a mighty fine world, and this job would be a much easier and a much nicer and a pleasant one. The Vice President is here tonight, too. And I appreciated most highly the tribute he paid to me. I want to say to you that there never was a President who was asso- ciated with a Vice President like Alben Barkley. That same bill will go to the Senate this week. The bill the House mutilated last Friday, I hope very much for the sake of the peace of the world that the Senate will repair the damage. I know they will, if they listen to the advice they get from the Vice President. He is right on these things, just the same as the Speaker is. I am glad to say that Israel did escape the wild swings of the meat axe in the House, but it was a close call. An attempt was made to cut down the funds that Israel needs 376 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 26 [144] to help itself, to take care of its refugees through improving its resources, and to place its economy on a firm, self-sustaining foundation. But this cut was defeated. However, the amendment that was made in the point 4 program will cut the funds for the countries that are neighbors to Israel, and for the free countries of Africa. The Mesopotamian Valley, properly de- veloped, will support 20 or 30 millions of people, as it did in ancient times. It can in peace. It can be developed, with our help. And it will be returned a thousand-fold in the peace it will help to bring in the Near East. There are developments in Africa that can raise the standard of living of that con- tinent 10-fold in less than a generation. Think what that means for peace. I can't help but dream a little out loud here. The Tigris and Euphrates Valleys can be made to bloom as they did in the times of Babylon and Nineveh. Israel can be made the country of milk and honey as it was in the time of Joshua. That is what we are trying to do. If those developments are made, why, there's a project which con- templates a siphon a hundred yards in diam- eter from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea Valley, the fall would create enough for the whole Near East. And it is not impossible, for I have had the survey made on it. There is a plateau in Ethiopia some 6,000 to 8,000 feet high, that has 65,000 square miles of land just exactly like the Corn Belt in northern Illinois. That 65,000 square miles has a temperate climate. Enough food can be raised on that 65,000 square miles to feed 100 million people. There are other projects in Africa equally as good. There's the Zambezi River down in South Africa, where the fall is twice as high as Niagara and the volume of water four times as great. Think what that would mean. There are places in South America — a plateau in Colombia and Venezuela — that is just as the one in Ethiopia is, that could raise enough food to feed 100 million people. There's a lake in South America, that is in Bolivia and part of the boundary that's in Peru and Chile, and that lake can be diverted to the coast of the Pacific. And the water that goes down the Madeira River to the Amazon and to waste, can be made to cause from a million to two million acres to bloom like the rose. Those are the things that will make a peaceable world. Those are the things that we dream about. Those are the things that we are trying to put into effect. That is what Dr. Bennett was doing. He had been in every country in the world that he thought could be developed and made a peaceable country, and that would continue to contribute to the peace of the world. He lost his life doing it. We have his successor now who is doing exactly the same thing. I have had Gordon Clapp, the Chairman of the TVA Board, make a survey of the Mesopotamian Valley, the Tigris to the Euphrates River, and several other rivers in that neighborhood, in Turkey and in Lebanon. These things can be done, and they are self-liquidating projects. We have im- mense amounts of money in this country that you might call risk capital, hunting for a place for investment. If we can get peace and safety in the world under the United Nations, the devel- opments will just come so fast we will not recognize the world in which we now live. I wish I could convert the Soviets. I am sincerely hoping — I wish I could convert the House, too — I am sincerely hop- ing that under the guidance of Alben Bark- ley, the Senate will reverse the House on what they have done. If it doesn't, I think the people ought to know exactly the danger that the Congress may have put them in. And I am sure that when the people know these facts, they will remedy the situation and do it quickly and effectively. Oh, I wish, as Israel did at one time, that our people could understand, and that Al- mighty God would give them a pillar of fire 377 [144] May 26 Public Papers of the Presidents to follow at night, and a pillar of smoke to follow in the daytime, so that we could accomplish this beautiful fight we are mak- ing for the peace of the world. For 7 long years that has been all I have worked for. The first order that I made after I was sworn into office in 1945, was that the United Nations should meet on the 25th of April, to write the United Nations Charter as President Roosevelt had outlined. From that time on, every move that I have made, everything that I have done as Presi- dent of the United States has been for peace in the world. Think what a wonderful thing it would be if we had complete peace and harmony in the Near East. Think of the develop- ments that I have been talking about. It is an integrated economic whole, with Israel as the industrial center and the rest of the country around there to produce the food and fiber necessary to feed that industrial mill of Israel. I am not a dreamer. I am a practical politician. I think I have proved that con- clusively. And my friends, a practical politician is a man who works for the wel- fare of the people for whom he is working. Now I pray — and I hope all of you will pray — that the effort which we are making for the peace of the world will not be wrecked for political purposes. Think about that, and talk about it. note: The President spoke at 10:40 p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Alben W. Barkley, Vice President of the United States, Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Abba S. Eban, Israeli Ambassador to the United States. Later he referred to General of the Army Dwight D. Eisen- hower, retiring Supreme Commander, Allied Powers Europe, and to Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, suc- cessor to General Eisenhower. On June 2 the President wrote a letter to Milton S. Kronheim, Sr., in which he commended the banquet proceedings and jocularly added: "The entertainment was perfect and your son made a contribution to the hilarity of the evening when he got my initial wrong." Kfar Truman is the Hebrew name for the Harry S. Truman Village in Israel, named for the Presi- dent as a tribute to his interest in and speedy recog- nition of Israel. 145 Remarks to Members of the American Action Committee Against Mass Deportations in Romania. May 28, 1952 I AM in complete sympathy with the people of Romania, and with all the other free countries, who have been placed behind the Iron Curtain. The Kremlin bombards the world with cries of peace — peace. And the Kremlin brings on war — war, at every point that she possibly can. The Kremlin cries that we have used germ warfare. There isn't a word of truth in that. We have never broken the Geneva conven- tion in our operations in Korea. And they know that. They know it well. But they keep on passing out the lies that have no foundation in fact whatever. And yet the thing that you have just told me about is far worse than anything that can take place in actual open war. This depor- tation and the kidnaping of children has been going on, both in Greece, in Germany, in Romania, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary, and in that part of Austria where the Rus- sians themselves have control. It is one of the most outrageous things that has ever happened in the history of the world. Don't you think that eventually they are not going to have to pay for it. Your country and several other free coun- tries that are now behind the Iron Curtain have suffered oppression before. Poland and Romania, and part of the old Austro-Hun- garian empire were overrun by Genghis Khan and the Turks, and yet you survived as free countries. 378 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 29 [146] You are going to survive as a free country. You are going to have our wholehearted cooperation in trying to survive. And if I can continue our program which I have in- augurated, you are going to be a free country again, before you pass on to the next world. note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 146 Veto of Bill Concerning Title to Offshore Lands. May 29, 1952 To the Senate of the United States: I return herewith, without my approval, Senate Joint Resolution 20, entitled "Joint Resolution To confirm and establish the titles of the States to lands beneath navigable waters within State boundaries and to the natural resources within such lands and waters, and to provide for the use and control of said lands and resources". This joint resolution deals with a matter which is of great importance to every person in the United States. I have studied it very carefully, and have taken into account the views and interests of those who support this legislation, as well as of those who are op- posed to it. I have concluded that I cannot approve this joint resolution, because it would turn over to certain States, as a free gift, very valuable lands and mineral resources of the United States as a whole — that is, of all the people of the country. I do not believe such an action would be in the national interest, and I do not see how any Presi- dent could fail to oppose it. The lands and mineral resources in ques- tion lie under the open sea off the Pacific, the Gulf, and the Atlantic coasts of our country. Contrary to what has been asserted, this resolution would have no effect whatever on the status of the lands which lie under navi- gable rivers, lakes, harbors, bays, sounds, and other navigable bodies of water that are in- land waters. Neither would it have any effect on the tidelands — that is, the lands along the sea shore which are covered at high tide and exposed at low tide. All such lands have long been held by the courts to belong to the States or their grantees, and this reso- lution would make no change in the situa- tion. The only lands which would be affected by this resolution extend under the open ocean for some miles seaward from the low- tide mark or from the mouths of harbors, sounds, and other inland waters. What this resolution would do would be to give these lands to the States which happen to border on the ocean. It has been contended that the joint reso- lution merely restores to the States property which they owned prior to the 1947 decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. California. This argument is en- tirely erroneous. Until recent years, little or no attention was paid to the question of who owned these lands under the open sea, since they were for all practical purposes without value. But, about twenty years ago, oil began to be pro- duced in substantial quantities from the sub- merged lands off the coast of California. Then, for the first time, the legal question of ownership became important and was given serious consideration. There was uncertainty for a number of years over whether these were State or Fed- eral lands. Even so careful and zealous a guardian of the public interest as the late Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, at first assumed that the undersea lands were owned by the States. When he subsequently made studies of the matter, however, he concluded that the United States had inter- ests in these lands which should be deter- mined by the courts. Whatever may have been the opinion of various people in the past, the legal con- 379 [146] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents troversy has now been finally resolved in the only way such legal questions can be resolved under our Constitution — that is by the courts, in this case by the Supreme Court. It has been resolved by that Court not once but three times. First in 1947, in the case of California, then twice in 1950, in the cases of Louisiana and Texas, the Court held that the submerged lands and mineral resources underlying the open waters of the ocean off the coast of the United States are lands and resources of the United States, and that the various coastal States, as such, do not have and have never had any title to or property interest in such lands or resources. Texas, of course, before it became a State and while it was an independent republic, had what- ever rights then existed in the submerged lands off its coast, but the Supreme Court ruled that any such rights were transferred to the United States under the annexation agreement when Texas entered the Union. Consequently, the law has now been de- termined, and it applies uniformly to all coastal States. Lands under the open sea are not owned by the coastal States, but are lands belonging to the United States — that is, they are lands of all the people of the country. Accordingly, the real question presented by this joint resolution is not who owns the lands in question. That question was settled by the Supreme Court. The real question this resolution raises is: should the people of the country give an asset belong- ing to all of them to the States which happen to border on the ocean. This resolution would do just that. Despite all the irrele- vant contentions which have been made in favor of this resolution, its real purpose and its sole effect would be to give to a few States undersea lands and mineral resources which belong to the entire Nation. I cannot agree that this would be a wise or proper way to dispose of these lands and mineral resources of the United States. Instead, I think the resources in these lands under the sea should be developed and used for the benefit of all the people of the coun- try, including those who live in the coastal States. I would not agree to any proposal that would deprive the people of the coastal States of anything that rightfully belongs to them. By the same token, I cannot be faithless to the duty I have to protect the rights of the people of the other States of the Union. The resources in the lands under the mar- ginal sea are enormously valuable. About 235 million barrels of oil have already been recovered from the submerged lands affected by this joint resolution — nearly all of it from lands off the coasts of California and Loui- siana. The oil fields already discovered in these lands are estimated to hold at least 278 million more barrels of oil. Moreover, it is estimated that more than 2V2 billion ad- ditional barrels of oil may be discovered in the submerged lands that would be given away off the coasts of California, Texas, and Louisiana alone. In addition to oil and gas, it is altogether possible that other mineral resources of great value will be discovered and developed beneath the ocean bed. The figures I have cited relate only to the submerged lands which are claimed to be covered by this resolution — that is, the mar- ginal belt of land which the sponsors of the resolution say extends seaward 3 marine leagues (io1/^ land miles) from the low-tide mark off the coast of Texas and the west coast of Florida, and 3 nautical miles (3V2 land miles) off all other coastal areas. The Continental Shelf, which extends in some areas 150 miles or more off the coast of our country, contains additional amounts of oil and other minerals of huge value. One oil well, for example, has already been drilled and is producing about 22 miles off the coast of Louisiana. While this resolution does not specifically purport to convey lands and resources of the Continental Shelf beyond a marginal belt, the resolution does open the door for the coastal States to come back and assert claims for the mineral resources of "the Continental Shelf lying seaward and outside of" this area. The intent of the coastal States in this regard 380 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 29 [146] has been made clear by actions of the State legislature of Louisiana, which has enacted legislation claiming to extend the State's boundary 27 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, and of the State legislature of Texas, which has enacted legislation claiming to extend that State's boundary to the outer limit of the Continental Shelf. Such an action would extend Texas' boundary as much as 130 miles into the Gulf of Mexico. I see no good reason for the Federal Gov- ernment to make an outright gift, for the benefit of a few coastal States, of property interests worth billions of dollars — property interests which belong to 155 million people. The vast quantities of oil and gas in the sub- merged ocean lands belong to the people of all the States. They represent part of a price- less national heritage. This national wealth, like other lands owned by the United States, is held in trust for every citizen of the United States. It should be used for the welfare and security of the Nation as a whole. Its future revenues should be applied to relieve the tax burdens of the people of all the States and not of just a few States. For these reasons, I cannot concur in donating lands under the open sea to the coastal States, as this resolution would do. I should like to dispose of some of the arguments which have been made in sup- port of this resolution — arguments which seem to me to be wholly fallacious. It has been claimed that such legislation as this is necessary to protect the rights of all the States in the lands beneath their naviga- ble inland waters. It has been argued that the decisions of the Supreme Court in the California, Louisiana, and Texas cases have somehow cast doubt on the status of lands under these inland waters. There is no truth in this at all. Nothing in these cases raises the slightest question about the own- ership of lands beneath inland waters. A long and unbroken line of Supreme Court decisions, extending back for more than 100 years, holds unequivocally that the States or their grantees own the lands beneath the navigable inland waters within the State boundaries. Long Island Sound, for example, was de- termined by the courts to be an inland water many years ago. So were Mobile Bay, and Mississippi Sound, and San Francisco Bay, and Puget Sound. Chesapeake and Dela- ware Bays, and New York and Boston Har- bors, are inland waters. The Federal Gov- ernment neither has nor asserts any right or interest in the lands and resources under- lying these or other navigable inland waters within State boundaries. Neither does it have or assert any right or interest in the tidelands, the lands lying between the high and low water marks of the tides. All this has been settled conclusively by the courts. If the Congress wishes to enact legislation confirming the States in the ownership of what is already theirs — that is, the lands and resources under navigable inland waters and the tidelands — I shall, of course, be glad to approve it. But such legislation is com- pletely unnecessary, and bears no relation whatever to the question of what should be done with lands which the States do not now own — that is, the lands under the open sea. The proponents of this legislation have also asserted that under the Supreme Court rulings the Federal Government may inter- fere with the rights of the States to control the taking, conservation, and development of fish, shrimp, kelp, and other marine ani- mal or plant life. It is also asserted that the Federal Government may interfere with the rights to filled-in or reclaimed lands, or the rights relating to docks, piers, breakwaters, or other structures built into or over the ocean. I can say simply and categorically that the Executive branch of the Govern- ment has no intention whatever of under- taking any such thing. If the Congress finds any cause for apprehension in this regard, it can easily settle the matter by appropriate legislation, which I would be very happy to approve. But these assertions provide no excuse for passing legislation to give to a 55-672—66—28 381 [146] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents few States — at the expense of the people of all the others — rights they do not now have to very valuable lands and minerals beneath the open sea. I have considered carefully the arguments that have been advanced to the general ef- fect that — regardless of the decisions of the Supreme Court — the coastal States ought to own the lands beneath the marginal sea. These arguments have been varied and in- genious. I cannot review all of them here. Suffice it to say I have found none of these arguments to be persuasive. The fact is that the Federal Government, and not the States, obtained the rights to these lands by the action of the Executive, beginning with a letter from Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson in 1793, when he asserted jurisdiction, on behalf of the United States as against all other nations, over the 3-mile belt of ocean seaward of the low-tide mark. Neither then nor at any other time did the Federal Government relinquish any authority over this belt. The rights to this ocean belt, in other words, are and always have been Federal rights, maintained under international law by the national govern- ment on behalf of all the people of the country. It has been strongly urged upon me that the case of Texas differs from that of the other coastal States, and that special consid- erations entitle Texas to submerged lands lying off its coast. I recognize that the situation relating to Texas is unique. Texas was an independent republic for nine years before she was admitted to the Union, in 1845, "on an equal footing with the existing States". During those nine years, it had whatever rights then existed in submerged lands of the marginal sea. Texas entered the Union pursuant to a joint resolution of annexation, enacted by the Congress. Some of the provisions of the annexation resolution are not clear in their meaning as they apply to the present question. Thus, the resolution granted to Texas "all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits", but at the 382 same time it also required Texas to cede to the United States "ail . . . ports and har- bors . . . and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence." The legal question relating to ownership of submerged lands off the coast of Texas may have been different and more difficult than the legal question with respect to Cali- fornia and Louisiana. But the Supreme Court decided that when Texas entered the Union on an equal footing with the other States, thereupon ceasing to be an independ- ent nation, it transferred national external sovereignty to the United States and relin- quished any claims it may have had to the lands beneath the sea. Not only has the Supreme Court ruled upon the difficult legal question, but in en- acting S.J. Res. 20 the Congress decided that all the coastal States should be treated in the same manner as Texas. In view of this, it obviously is impossible for me to consider the resolution exclusively from the stand- point of the unique situation relating to Texas. As to those parts of the Continental Shelf that lie beyond the marginal belt that would be transferred by S.J. Res. 20, the States have no grounds for asserting claims. There can be no claim that these lands lay within the boundaries of any States at the time of their admission to the Union. Neither can there be any claim of an historical understanding that these were State lands. More important, the Nation's rights in those lands, as in the case of the marginal belt, are national rights based upon action taken by the Fed- eral government. In 1945, the President issued a proclama- tion declaring that the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the Continental Shelf beneath the high seas appertain to the United States, and are subject to its juris- diction and control. This proclamation as- serts the interests of the United States in the land and resources under the high seas well beyond the 3-mile belt of territorial sea estab- lished in Jefferson's time. This jurisdiction was, of course, asserted on behalf of the Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 29 [146] United States as a whole, and not just on behalf of the coastal States. In view of the controversy of the last fifteen years or so over the disposition of the lands underlying the marginal sea belt, and the more recent problem relating to rights in the remainder of the Continental Shelf, I should like in this message to indicate the outlines of what would appear to me to be a reason- able solution. First, it is of great importance that the exploration of the submerged lands — both in the marginal sea belt and the rest of the Continental Shelf — for oil and gas fields should go ahead rapidly, and any fields dis- covered should be developed in an orderly fashion which will provide adequate recogni- tion for the needs of national defense. S.J. Res. 20, as originally introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, and as reported from the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, would have filled this need on an interim basis, pending further study by the Congress, by providing for Federal leases to private parties for ex- ploration and development of the oil and gas deposits in the undersea lands. But, as it was amended and passed, the resolution would only make possible the development under State control of the resources of the marginal belt; it makes no provision what- ever for developing the resources of the rest of the Continental Shelf. I wish to call special attention to the need for considering the national defense aspects of this matter — which the present bill disre- gards completely. In recent years, we have changed from an oil-exporting to an oil-importing Nation. We are rapidly using up our known reserves of oil; we are uncertain how much remains to be found; and we face a growing depend- ence upon imports from other parts of the world. We need, therefore, to encourage exploration for more oil within lands subject to United States jurisdiction, and to conserve most carefully, against any emergency, a por- tion of our national oil reserves. S.J. Res. 20, as it reached me, does not provide at all for the national defense interest in the oil under the marginal sea. Indeed, the latter half of the ambiguous and con- tradictory terms of section 6(a) of the res- olution appears to bar the United States from exercising any control, for national defense purposes or otherwise, over the natural re- sources under the sea. While section 6(b) gives the Government, in time of war, the right of first refusal to purchase oil, and the right to acquire land through condemnation proceedings, these provisions avoid com- pletely the main problem, which is to make sure, before any war comes, that our oil resources are not dissipated. In contrast to these provisions, S.J. Res. 20, as originally introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, provided in sec- tion 7(a) that the President could, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any unleased lands of the Continental Shelf and reserve them in the interest of national security. In passing the resolution now be- fore me, however, the Congress omitted en- tirely this or any other similar provision. It is not too much to say that in passing this legislation the Congress proposes to sur- render priceless opportunities for conserva- tion and other safeguards necessary for na- tional security. I regard this as extremely unfortunate, and it is for this reason espe- cially that the Department of Defense has strongly urged me to withhold approval from S.J. Res. 20. I urge the Congress to enact, in place of the resolution before me, legislation which will provide for renewed exploration and prudent developments of the oil and gas fields under the open sea, on a basis that will adequately protect the national defense interests of the Nation. Second, the Congress should provide for the disposition of the revenues obtained from oil and gas leases on the undersea lands. S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators O'Mahoney and Anderson, would have granted the adjacent coastal States 37^ 383 [146] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents percent of the revenues from submerged lands of the marginal sea. I would have no objection to such a provision, which is simi- lar to existing provisions under which the States receive 37% percent of the revenues from the Federal Government's oil-produc- ing public lands within their borders. Another suggestion, which was offered by Senator Hill on behalf of himself and 18 other Senators, was that the revenues from the undersea lands, other than the portion to be paid to the adjacent coastal States under the O'Mahoney-Anderson res- olution, should be used to aid education throughout the Nation. When you consider how much good such a provision would do for school children throughout the Nation, it gives particular emphasis to the necessity for preserving these great assets for the benefit of all the people of the country rather than giving them to a few of the States. Third, I believe any legislation dealing with the undersea lands should protect the equitable interests of those now holding state-issued leases on those lands. The Gov- ernment certainly should not impair bona fide investments which have been made in the undersea lands, and the legislation should make this clear. Here again, S.J. Res. 20, as introduced by Senators O'Ma- honey and Anderson, provided a sensible approach. But unfortunately, S.J. Res. 20 was con- verted on the floor of the Senate into legis- lation which makes a free gift of immensely valuable resources, which belong to the entire Nation, to the States which happen to be located nearest to them. For the reasons stated above, I find neither wisdom nor necessity in such a course, and I am com- pelled to return the joint resolution without my approval. Harry S. Truman 147 Letter to Senator Maybank on the Atomic Energy Program. May 29, 1952 [Released May 29, 1952. Dated May 28, 1952] My dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that, in the course of recent hearings on the Atomic Energy Commis- sion's 1953 budget, members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed concern over the effect on total Federal ex- penditures of the proposed expansion of the atomic energy program, as well as its rela- tionship to our total defense effort. I share your concern about the magnitude of Fed- eral expenditures. The cost of the expansion program will be substantial. We must nevertheless continue our efforts to buttress the security of this country and of the free world. Not to do so invites disaster. I am convinced, therefore, that we must and that we can accomplish the proposed expansion in our atomic energy program. However, to make doubly sure, I recently have asked the members of the special committee of the National Security Council which I desig- nated initially to review and make recom- mendations on this expansion program to reconsider it in the light of existing condi- tions. This reconsideration by the NSC com- mittee members clearly verifies that this expansion program is integral to the neces- sary strengthening of our military defenses; current international conditions require that we proceed with dispatch to so strengthen our defenses; and the program is within the capabilities of the Commission and the ex- pected availability of raw materials. The manpower, power and construction mate- rials required for the new facilities can be made available without unduly adverse ef- fects on the rest of the defense program or on our economy generally. I am sending to you copies of the letters in which the 384 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 29 [148] members of the special committee express their views upon the proposed expansion program. The program has been carefully reviewed in order to bring its total cost down to a practicable minimum. Every effort has been made to exclude facilities not essential to achieving the expanded production goals. The presently estimated total capital cost of about 4.2 billion dollars, including the cost of power facilities to be constructed by the Tennessee Valley Authority, is substantially below the initial estimate of 5.4 billion dol- lars for the program. A substantial saving has been accomplished through further studies by the Atomic Energy Commission. Other cost reductions have been achieved in the course of analyses by the Commission and the Bureau of the Budget. While appropriations of nearly 3.1 billion dollars are needed in the fiscal year 1953 to enable the Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority to move ahead on the planned expansion of facilities, it is estimated that actual expenditures in that year will amount to only about 650 million dollars; the remainder will need to be obligated for construction contracts and equipment pro- curement that will not be sufficiendy ad- vanced to require actual cash outlay until subsequent years. In view of the action thus far on the 1953 annual appropriation bills, it does not appear that the expenditures for this expansion program will serve to increase total Federal expenditures in the fiscal year 1953 above the figure shown in the 1953 Budget. I wish to urge upon you and your com- mittee the importance to this Nation and the rest of the free world of undertaking this expansion program without delay. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Burnet R. Maybank, Chairman, Sub- committee on Independent Offices, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington 25, D.C.] note: For the President's statement upon approv- ing the Supplemental Appropriation Act providing funds for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority, see Item 205. 148 Letter to the President of the Senate on Proposed Amendments to the Defense Production Act. May 29, 1952 My dear Mr. President: I understand that the Senate is beginning debate on S. 2594, amending and extending the Defense Production Act of 1950. I want to call to the attention of the Senate the seri- ous implications of two of the proposed amendments in this bill — one dealing with the Wage Stabilization Board and the other with the Walsh-Healey Act. The first of these amendments, Section 106 of the bill, would abolish the existing tripar- tite Wage Stabilization Board — composed of representatives of management, labor and the public — and substitute a public board in which management and labor representatives are denied membership. The amendment would also strip the Board of its present responsibilities in handling labor disputes. These changes would have a direct effect upon our ability to maintain essential pro- duction under our mobilization program. I cannot emphasize too strongly that the main burden of the defense program lies ahead of us. Because of the high rate of consumer savings and the increase in productive ca- pacity, we have been able to relax some of our controls. But we are by no means at the point where we can afford to jeopardize the mobilization program by failing to provide an adequate system for maintaining a sound wage stabilization program and for handling labor disputes, affecting the defense program. And that is just what is involved in this amendment. We should not lose sight of the fact that in determining the composition of the Wage 385 [148] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents Stabilization Board we are dealing with far more than a mechanical problem of admin- istration. In giving labor and management an equal voice, we are encouraging them to share in the responsibility of making our wage stabilization program work. We are placing our faith in the capacity of respon- sible parties to help work out solutions to their problems in the national interest. The effectiveness of the tripartite approach has been well demonstrated both in wage stabilization and in the handling of labor disputes. Through this approach we utilize the experience of labor and management and take advantage of the best advice and counsel available. The fact is that the present tripartite set-up is working well. The representatives of industry and labor have been of great assist- ance in the development of the wage stabili- zation program and up to now have made a unique contribution in seeing to it that the wage stabilization rules have been complied with. The members of the Board have worked together to meet their responsibili- ties. The public interest has been adequately protected. The record shows that most of the general regulations and policies of the Board have been adopted by unanimous vote. The record also shows that in petitions for approval of wage increases submitted to the Board — which represent 99 per cent of the cases coming before the Board — the Board has been unanimous in over 90 per cent of its rulings. Of course, some disagreements are to be expected under a tripartite arrange- ment, but the record shows that the public members, in both wage stabilization and dis- pute cases, have done a conscientious job in resolving such differences, voting in accord- ance with their best judgment. The Congress should bear in mind that the tripartite approach has proven its worth in two previous periods of national emer- gency— and it is proving its worth again. We should not arbitrarily abandon this ap- proach in favor of a system which denies to the Government the experience, the wis- dom, and the effective participation of labor and management in the stabilization pro- gram. The proposed amendment not only would change the composition of the Board but would deprive it of its responsibilities for handling labor disputes. This presents a very serious problem. There is a good reason why the Govern- ment must provide machinery for the settle- ment of labor disputes which threaten the defense program. Under normal circum- stances, labor and management are free to bargain collectively to determine wages and working conditions and, when they cannot reach agreement, they are free to resort to strikes and lockouts. But in a defense econ- omy, the free play of collective bargaining — including the freedom of strike action — must necessarily be restricted. There are some instances where the national security — and indeed the very lives of our troops in Korea — cannot be adequately protected if a defense plant closes down. In these circumstances, the Government must use its mediation and conciliation powers to the fullest in order to induce the parties to settle their disputes. And, if all else fails, we must, as a last resort in cases where vital defense production is involved, provide some practical alternative for the traditional test of economic strength. That is why the Government is providing, through the disputes functions of the Wage Stabilization Board, a system which offers the parties every assistance in avoiding work stoppages. In establishing disputes respon- sibilities in the Board, we have deliberately sought to give as much play as possible to collective bargaining and to mediation and conciliation during this emergency period. For this reason, the Board may make final and binding decisions only in those cases where both parties agree in advance to be bound by the Board's findings. The Board only hears those disputes which the parties themselves submit for recommendation or decision, or which the President certifies to the Board for recommendation. Under this 386 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 29 [148] arrangement, we rely primarily on the good sense and patriotism of the parties to reach a settlement on their own after an impartial third party has recommended a fair settle- ment. We have not reached the point — and I hope we never reach it — of compulsory arbitration, where we substitute Government dictation of wages and working conditions for collective bargaining. By and large, this system for handling labor disputes is working well. It is now evident that there was no basis for the fear that every labor dispute would be dumped on the Board. Furthermore, strikes have generally been averted. Of the twelve dis- pute cases certified to the Board by the President — disputes where at least one of the parties wanted to fight it out through resort to work stoppages — the Board has been generally successful, primarily because of its tripartite character, in avoiding a strike. Vital defense production has been maintained. In the thirty-three dispute cases submitted voluntarily by the parties, there has not been one instance of inter- rupted production. The one notable exception in the Board's successful record in getting settlements has been the steel case. The failure to reach a settlement thus far in the steel case is not the fault of the Board, for its recommenda- tions provide a sound and sensible basis for reaching agreement on the issues in dispute. And, in any event, the lack of a settlement in this case could not possibly justify aban- doning the machinery that has been success- ful in so many other cases. If there had been no forum to hear the disputes which have been before the Board, the defense program would have been dam- aged by crippling strikes. Further, the Congress should remember that in all the labor disputes now before the Board the parties are continuing production at the re- quest of the Board while their case is being heard. If the Board is deprived of its au- thority to recommend a fair settlement of those disputes, the major inducement to the parties to refrain from resort to economic pressures and to use the peaceful alternative provided by the Government as a means of settling their differences will be removed. If there is no peaceful alternative to strikes, then we will have strikes. I cannot believe that the Congress will close its eyes to this inescapable fact. Many people seem to feel that the Taft- Hartley Act meets our needs for industrial peace during the mobilization period. That just is not so. The emergency provisions of that Act were not designed for a mobiliza- tion economy and by their very terms do not apply to labor disputes in single defense plants. In any event, the emergency provi- sions of the Taft-Hartley Act are inadequate. At best, the Taft-Hartley Act simply delays a strike for 80 days. It makes no positive contribution toward settlement of the dispute but simply gives the parties a respite from the pressures of collective bargaining. The Boards of Inquiry authorized under the Act are expressly forbidden to make any recom- mendations for settlement. Yet recommen- dations for settlement by some impartial tribunal are precisely what is needed if the parties are to be given assistance and if the force of public opinion is to be brought into play to encourage a settlement. Thus, it is obvious that the emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act fall far short of meeting the needs of the defense emergency. I want to make it absolutely clear to the Congress what is at stake here. We cannot meet our production goals and keep our economy stable if we fail to provide a sound and fair system of wage stabilization and disputes settlement. If the Congress pro- hibits the participation of labor and manage- ment in wage stabilization, it will, in effect, be declaring its lack of confidence in the integrity and public-spiritedness of both labor and management. If the Congress will not provide some forum where labor disputes may be heard and considered, it will, in effect, be encouraging strikes and lockouts. 387 [148] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents I also want to call to the Senate's attention the serious effects of the amendment in Sec- tion 301 dealing with the Walsh-Healey Act. That Act provides for the determination of wage and working standards for workers employed on Government procurement con- tracts. It was passed in 1936 to advance the public interest in sound labor standards and to protect fair-minded businessmen by ruling out unscrupulous dealers and unprincipled manufacturers who were able to submit the lowest bids for Government contracts only because of their exploitation of workers. The Act was aimed at preventing the resort to "sweatshop" working conditions and child labor in carrying out Government contracts. As such, the Walsh-Healey Act has been a major force in encouraging sound labor standards in this country. The amendment in Section 301 of this bill, however, would seriously retard the effective- ness of the Walsh-Healey Act. In the first place, it would drastically cut down the present coverage of the Act by excluding Government purchases of materials which are sold in the open market to purchasers generally. I am advised that by restricting the Act to contracts for those articles which are specially made for the Government, fully half of all contracts now covered might be exempt. The proportion of contracts ex- cluded would increase in normal times when the Government does not purchase the great quantities of specially made items required for military purposes during a mobilization program. As a result, the purchasing power of the Federal Government would once again be instrumental in depressing labor stand- ards to the detriment of businessmen who wish to adhere to advanced working stand- ards in their plants and factories. Second, the amendment would place very serious procedural obstacles in the way of effective administration of the Walsh-Healey Act. The net effect of these new procedural requirements is to distort the original intent of the Administrative Procedures Act. That Act already provides adequate protection to private parties affected by Walsh-Healey in- terpretations and rulings, and the Secretary of Labor not only has scrupulously abided by its spirit but has gone beyond its specific requirements in assuring full hearings to interested parties. In short, these procedural changes would pave the way for harassing litigation by those who want to make the Walsh-Healey Act ineffective. It should be noted that this amendment is, in effect, a "rider." Although proposed in a bill dealing with temporary, emergency authority, it would incorporate revisions in permanent legislation. The Walsh-Healey Act has served as a landmark for sound labor standards in this country and has served us well in protecting these standards, particu- larly during World War II. I, therefore, urge the Senate not to take any action which would arbitrarily destroy an essential safe- guard of the decent working conditions which we have carefully built up in this country over the past 16 years. These two amendments deserve the most critical analysis of the Senate. They have serious and far-reaching consequences. This is no time to lose sight of the urgent require- ments of our mobilization program or of the enduring need to protect sound labor stand- ards in our country. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: For the President's July 1 statement on the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, ap- proved June 30, see Item 190. See also Item 33. 388 Harry S. Truman, 7952 May 29 [149] 149 The President's News Conference of May 29, 1952 the president, [i.] Well, the Navy clock3 was on time this time, so I am on time. [Laughter] Please be seated. I want to express my appreciation for the attendance of the NATO editors. I hope they will enjoy the conference, and I hope they will also enjoy their entire visit here in this country, and get some information that will be of value to them. [2.] There has been some discussion about the arrival of General Eisenhower. As soon as he gets through with the "One More Club" down at the airport, he is going to come up to the White House and pay his courtesy call on the President and make his report to me. Any questions you want to ask? I will try to answer them if I can. Q. Mr. President, that will be in your office, I assume, rather than the president. It will be in my study in the White House. Q. In the White House? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Mr. President, do you plan to see him again before he leaves town THE PRESIDENT. Yes Q. Tuesday? the president. yes, I expect to see him again. What do you want, Duke? 2 Q. I want to clear up that you want to see him again on Monday ? the president. Oh yes, I will see him on Monday. Q.-Are you finished with General Eisen- hower now? the president. Yes. Unless you fellows want some more information. [3.] Q. Down in Missouri last week a party leader said that you had inferred to him that you were for the Attorney General 1 See Item 136 [1]. 2 Duke Shoop of the Kansas City Star. of Missouri for nomination for the Senate, and that you were not for Mr. Symington.3 the president. I am going to vote for the Attorney General when it comes my time to vote. I am taking no personal interest in the primary or any activity in it, but I shall support "Buck" Taylor. Q. Is that J. E. "Buck" Taylor? the president. Yes, J. E. Taylor. Every- body calls him "Buck." [4.] Q. Mr. President, I hate to bring this up at a time like this with the NATO editors here, but Congressman Poage of Texas made a speech to the House yester- day— it's in the Congressional Record4 — in which he said he imagined that the nations of the world with whom we are now negoti- ating treaties might be reluctant to sign up with us since you, in vetoing the tidelands bill, repudiated an international treaty made with the Republic of Texas. the president. I have not read the speech, and the veto message covers that very ground. You read the message 5 and you won't have to ask me that question. Q.I did. the president. You read the message. Q. I have. the president. Then you won't have to ask any comment from me. That covers it. Q. Well, no sir, if you don't mind my saying so — and I read the message, and I discussed my question with Congressman Poage before I came, and I discussed the veto message; and we are still puzzled. the president. You shouldn't be. Read it carefully. If you understand English you can't be puzzled. [5.] Q. Anything you would care to say, 3 J. E. Taylor, Attorney General of Missouri, and W. Stuart Symington, former Administrator of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, were both candidates in the Democratic primary in Missouri. 4 Volume 98, page 6190. 5 See Item 146. 389 [149] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents Mr. President, about the disposition of the mutual security bill ? THE PRESIDENT. What? Q. You said a lot about it already, sir, but the Senate passed it last night and cut it 200 million. the president. I think I made myself per- fectly clear three different times, if you will hunt up those comments. Q. I thought I would give you another chance. the president. No, I have said enough. I will attend to the rest of it when the bill gets to me.6 [6.] Q. Mr. President, I want to be clear. You are going to see General Eisenhower Sunday ? the president. That's right. Q. And you were asked if you were going to see him again Tuesday? the president. No, no, I was asked if I was going to see him again, and I said yes. Q. I asked were you going to see him again before he leaves Tuesday. the president. That's right. Q. Before he leaves Tuesday. I see. the president. I don't know what time. He has got a tremendous number of engage- ments before he leaves town. Whenever it is convenient, I will see him — if it is necessary for me to see him, I will see him. [7.] Q. Also I would like to ask you, have you been informed about this kangaroo that is being sent you from the president. No. I saw a picture in the paper of a kangaroo that was purported to be on its way here.7 I thought maybe I would give it to the press conference. [Laughter] Joseph H. Short (Secretary to the Presi- dent): Well, Mr. President, I have been neglectful. I haven't kept you up to date on the kangaroo. I'm sorry, sir. 6 On June 20, 1952, the President approved the Mutual Security Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 141). 7 The 1 4-month -old albino kangaroo, the only one in captivity, was a gift from Australia to the people of the United States. the president. I saw about it in the paper. Q. Mr. President, that kangaroo doesn't have any name, and you are very good at naming dinosaurs, I thought you might have a name for the kangaroo? the president. I haven't seen the kanga- roo. I don't know whether it's a lady or a gentleman. I will have to wait and find out. [8.] Q. Mr. President, in recent days the situation in the negotiations in Korea and also the situation in Berlin seem to have de- teriorated rather rapidly and drastically. I wonder if there is anything you could say on the world situation in the light of those two things ? the president. I cannot comment on it until I have had an interview with Dean Acheson. [9.] Q. Mr. President, in relation to your speech to the electric consumers,8 do I under- stand that you think the public ought to own all of the production of electric power? the president. No, I don't think any such thing. And I didn't say any such thing, and I didn't imply any such thing. Q. I want to clear that up. the president. It's clear. Q. Do you think the public should own all of the utilities of the country? the president. I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. When I get ready to make a power speech, it will be perfectly plain to you. I am not going to make the speech here now for you, so you will just have to wait. Q. I did read your speech. I want to clear up what you meant. the president. You read it again. I didn't make any such statement as you are trying to imply. [10.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Churchill told the House of Commons that the situa- tion in Korea is very grave. Do you share that point of view? the president. I didn't read the Prime Minister's speech or remarks, and I do not 8 See Item 143. 390 Harry S. Truman, 1952 May 29 [149] care to comment on that situation, as I said awhile ago, until I have a chance to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. And he will be here Monday — maybe tomorrow — I don't know. Mr. Short: Tomorrow morning. the president. Tomorrow morning, says Joe. [11.] Q. Mr. President a few weeks ago you said you might hold Congress here in session from now until January if they don't cooperate on the mutual security and defense programs. Is that still your intention? the president. There are certain things that must be done no matter how long it takes, and I hope they will get them done before it is time for them to go to the con- ventions. [12.] Q. Mr. President, Mr. Bernard Baruch yesterday told a Senate committee that he felt that the stretchout program in national defense which he inferred was ap- proved by both Congress and the adminis- tration, was a mistake. Do you agree that this stretchout is a mistake? the president. I have no comment to make on that. My action speaks for itself. [13.] Q. Mr. President, do you intend to be near a television set Wednesday at seven? the president. Wednesday at seven? Q. That is when Ike has his homecoming at Abilene. the president. I didn't know it. I hadn't heard about it. I usually watch the television show, particularly watch it when Margaret is on. Q. I don't know whether she'll be on then. the president. She is going to be on Thursday. [Laughter] [14.] Q. Mr. President, I understand some historians saw you this morning about the disposition of your papers. Could you tell us something about that? the president. Well, I was just discussing the historical disappearance of Presidential papers and discussing with them the best manner in which those papers and docu- ments should be taken care of. They are going to furnish me with a memorandum as soon as they have a chance to discuss the matter among themselves. [15.] Q. Mr. President, would you list some of these things that might keep Con- gress here ? the president. No. No, I will attend to that when the time comes, and I am not making any statements now because the Congress has plenty of time to act, and there's no use talking about it until they don't act. Then I will talk about it. Q. Mr. President, both Delegate Farring- ton of Hawaii and Delegate Bartlett of Alaska have said that there is no hope for getting statehood through this session. Have you any comment to make on that ? the president. I am still for statehood and doing everything I can to get it through. Q. Hawaii also? Same for Hawaii? the president. Both. Both. She men- tioned both of them. I am for both of them and always have been. [16.] Q. Mr. President, are there any outstanding examples of Presidential papers that have disappeared ? the president. Yes. The papers of Abra- ham Lincoln were scattered from one end of the country to the other, and that has hap- pened in the case of a great many Presidents, all of whom I can't name here, but I have the list over at the office. And we have got a bill through the Congress authorizing the Archives to take charge of the Presidential papers, and also state papers of all the other officials of the Government, and see that they are available for future use for the Presidents and for historians.9 [17.] Q. Mr. President, one other thing. You were handing out so much news over there today — we missed Bill Boyle.10 I was just wondering what the occasion was for his call? We didn't have a chance to talk to him. 9 Federal Records Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 583). 10 William M. Boyle, Jr., former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. 391 [149] May 29 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. Bill Boyle comes to see me whenever he feels like it. He is one of my best friends. He just came in to pay me a courtesy call. Had a very pleasant talk with him, too. Q. Well, he was on the calling list, that is why I asked you. He hadn't been before. the president. Oh, he comes in every once in a while. [18.] Q. Mr. President, this is by nature repetition. Do you care to name a candidate this week ? the president. No. I don't expect to name any candidates. The Democratic con- vention is going to do that. [19.] Q. Mr. President, about those papers again. Is it your desire to have them placed in a library in Independence? the president. No, not a library in Inde- pendence. I hope to have an archives build- ing in the nature of the Hyde Park arrange- ment, under the control of the Federal Gov- ernment, and in its possession. Q. Yes. Where will that be? the president. I am contemplating a site about 9 miles south of Kansas City. Q. That would be Grandview? the president. Yes. [20.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Taft favored a billion dollar cut from the $6,900 million mutual security bill that was re- ported from the two Senate committees. Senator Brewster of Maine is one of Senator Taft's main supporters for the presidential nomination, yet he voted against every single foreign aid cut that was proposed. Would you say that he was being responsive to pub- lic opinion? the president. I think probably I will answer that on the whistlestop campaign. Q. Mr. President, when is that whisdestop campaign going to start — out of Washing- ton? the president. Well, I am not ready yet. I am going to give you plenty of time to pack your grips so you will be all right. That has to be done by invitation, you know. I am not a candidate this year. Q. Yes sir. We understand that, sir. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's three hundred and sixth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, May 29, 1952. 150 Address Before the President's Conference on Industrial Safety. ]une 2, 1952 Secretary Tobin, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I am very glad to meet again with the President's Conference on Industrial Safety. This is the third time I have had the pleasure of welcoming this conference since it was started more than 3 years ago. It was in 1948 that I asked the Secretary of Labor to call the first national conference of industrial safety leaders. I did so because of my deep concern over the high rate of occu- pational accidents. I am just as deeply con- cerned about those accidents today as I was in 1948. In fact, the situation is worse today, I am sorry to report, than it was then. At my first meeting with you in March of 1949, I proposed that we try to reduce the rate of job accidents by one-third within 3 years. That was a high goal. But, until the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, we were making good progress. Then, due to our defense program, thou- sands of new workers were brought into defense plants and other industries. And thousands of other workers shifted from their old jobs to new jobs. With the changed conditions, the number of work accidents began to increase. They increased 4 percent in 1950 and another 9 percent in 195 1. This increase is a very serious matter. We must do everything we can to stop it. We must see to it that the accident rate starts down- 392 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 2 [150] hill again, and that it keeps on going down- hill. Last year, work accidents took 16,000 lives. In addition, 1,600 workers were totally and permanently disabled. More than 89,000 were partially disabled. And about 2 million were temporarily disabled. These figures are not merely dull statistics. They point to a shocking national tragedy — a tragedy which is all the more terrible be- cause it is so thoroughly unnecessary. These 2 million injuries and deaths repre- sent untold human suffering and misery. They represent an awful social waste. They represent a severe economic loss to individual workers, to business and industry, and to the welfare of the Nation as a whole. In 1950, industrial accidents cost industry and labor about $4% billion. They are cost- ing more than that today, and they are de- priving us of a great deal of production which is vitally needed. We cannot afford this accident rate. We cannot afford it in terms of human beings, and we cannot afford it in terms of our na- tional security and prosperity. This year our economic needs call for a million new work- ers, yet about twice that number will be in- jured in industrial accidents. Think what a dreadful thing and what a terrible waste that is. Now, there are a lot of things that need to be done, and there are a lot of things, of course, that are being accomplished. Private groups have been doing a good job in dis- covering better methods of accident control. Management and labor have been cooper- ating more and more in developing safety programs and in making them work. Many of the States have been making splendid progress in industrial safety. Their Gover- nors' Conferences and other types of safety gatherings are bringing more safety knowl- edge to the workingman and his employer. The Federal Government is also trying to help — through the Department of Labor and other Federal agencies. Early this year, following the tragic mine explosion in West Frankfort, Illinois, I asked the Congress to enact legislation which will make the coal mines safer places in which to work. I recommended legislation authorizing the Department of the Interior to enforce compliance with Federal stand- ards of mine safety. Under existing law the Department can set standards, make inspec- tions, and offer recommendations. But it has no enforcement authority whatever. It has only the power of persuasion. That power is not enough, as events have conclusively proven. In recent years thousands of miners have lost their lives in accidents that never should have happened. Thousands more have been injured. In a number of instances mine disasters have occurred after warnings were given by Federal inspectors. The mine safety legislation I have recom- mended will save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of injuries. It is clear that the coal miners and their families must have better protection, and they are entitled to look to their Government to see that they get it. I am happy to say that the Senate has passed the necessary legislation. I hope the House of Representatives will act on it very soon. Every day of delay invites further disasters. The President's Conference is one of the most important means for accomplishing real advances in industrial safety. It pro- vides a rallying point — a place where knowl- edge of accident prevention can be assembled and made available to the Nation. The best safety experts in the country gather here. Management and labor meet here in an effort to solve a common problem. Representa- tives of both the Federal and State govern- ments meet to devise better standards for accident prevention. From the beginning I have placed a lot of hope in this conference, and I have not been disappointed in it. You have done an out- standing job. You have already advanced the cause of industrial safety by many years. I want to thank you for what you have been doing, and I want to compliment you for what you have accomplished. But above all, I want to urge you to go forward with your good work. 393 [150] June 2 Public Papers of the Presidents I believe you will agree with me that the most important problem facing this conference is to bring about the actual appli- cation of the safety principles you have already proposed. Practically all industrial injuries are preventable. The knowledge of how to prevent them is already in ex- istence. What remains to be done is to apply those known methods at the places where accidents occur. To accomplish this I believe the Nation should have an eight-point industrial safety program — a program based upon recom- mendations which have been made by this conference. Let me give you the eight spe- cific points I am suggesting. First, accident reporting and analysis should be improved. Not enough people understand the importance of careful, com- plete reporting and analysis of accidents. I'm glad to hear that your Committee on Accident Records, Analysis and Use is pre- paring a series of articles explaining accident records and their significance. These ar- ticles ought to be very valuable, and they should have the widest possible distribution. Second, manufacturers of machines should install better guards on the machines. The Department of Labor has recently surveyed State safety requirements for a number of machines. They report that, with few ex- ceptions, conflicts in State codes are no longer serious — and that is really good news. It is now entirely possible for machinery manu- facturers to design fully guarded machines which meet most State requirements. Man- ufacturers will, of course, build the kind of machinery people will buy. So if we can persuade the customer to buy machines de- signed with safeguards, a tremendous ad- vance can soon be made on the road toward industrial safety. Third, schools, colleges, and plants should emphasize safety education. The President's Conference can make a great contribution by encouraging this type of safety training. I hear that the University of Maryland is doing a good job in this field, and I am sure that other schools can do the same thing. Fourth, every company should have an organized safety program. This is the very heart of accident prevention. Industrial plants need safety organizations which will study operations, accident records, and safety techniques, and which will stimulate work- ers to exercise greater care. Fifth, workers should participate more extensively in safety measures. We are all aware that vigilance and care on the part of the worker are essential to safety. And right here, I'd like to say that labor unions have just as important a role to play as does management. Labor unions should see to it that they and their members participate in safety training and safety promotion. Every worker must practice safety every minute of every working day if we are to prevent unnecessary accidents. And they are all unnecessary. Sixth, State safety codes should be modern- ized and made uniform. It is highly en- couraging that so many States are overhaul- ing their codes and adding new ones. We can all profit by giving more attention to these safety codes. Seventh, public employees should have better safety programs. As some of you know, I recently called upon Federal de- partments and agencies to organize field safety councils. I hope to add more and more of these councils in all parts of the United States where Federal employees work. I am going to do my best to see that the Federal Government reduces the annual toll of 78,000 work accidents among its employees. I hope the States will also take measures to improve safety programs for their employees. Eighth, there must be better public under- standing and support for accident preven- tion. We have not succeeded in indoctri- nating enough of our people in safe methods of work. Much more needs to be done, and I hope you will explore and develop every opportunity for public educa- tion in safety. These are the eight points which I hope this conference will strive to bring home to 394 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 2 [151] the Nation. I hope you will make these points the basis for your programs of the future. One of the noblest purposes of mankind is the saving of human life. That is your pur- pose, and it provides about the greatest pos- sible source of inspiration. But attached to this purpose now is an additional incen- tive— the importance of conserving the skills of the Nation for the needs of defense pro- duction. We badly need all our manpower resources in order to build up our defenses to achieve a permanent peace in the world. Most of our 2 million job accidents need never happen. This conference can do a great deal to see that they do not happen in the future. I am sure you will do that. And I want you to know that I appreciate very highly the work you are doing. And I want to add right here that this conference and other conferences which I have had on fire prevention and road acci- dents goes to the fundamental basis of the economic stability of this country. If you are successful in what you are trying to do here, if you go home with a successful pro- gram and put it into effect, if we can con- tinue to do everything we possibly can to prevent unnecessary destruction of property and life by fire, if we do everything we pos- sibly can to prevent unnecessary destruction of life and property by this machine they call the automobile — which is the most deadly thing that man has ever invented — I then think we will have arrived at a situation where, when world peace comes, we will be the happiest nation on the face of the earth. That is what I want to see. note: The President spoke at n a.m. in the De- partmental Auditorium in Washington. His open- ing words referred to Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of Labor. The President's Conference on Industrial Safety was held in Washington, June 2-4, 1952. 151 Special Message to the Senate Transmitting a Convention on Relations With Germany, and Related Documents. June 2, 1952 To the Senate of the United States: I transmit herewith for the consideration of the Senate a copy of the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, signed by the United Kingdom, the French Republic, the United States, and the Federal Republic of Germany at Bonn on May 26, 1952, to which is annexed the Charter of the Arbitration Tribunal. I also transmit a copy of a proto- col to the North Atlantic Treaty covering security guarantees to the members of the European Defense Community by the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Paris on May 27, 1952. I request the advice and consent of the Senate to the ratification of these two documents. In addition, I transmit for the informa- tion of the Senate a number of related docu- ments, including a report made to me by the Secretary of State; three additional Conven- tions with the Federal Republic of Germany related to the main Convention; the Treaty Constituting the European Defense Com- munity; a declaration made by the United States, the United Kingdom and the French Governments at the time of the signing of this Treaty; and the Treaty Constituting the European Coal-and-Steel Community. Together these documents constitute a great forward stride toward strengthening peace and freedom in the world. They are all concerned directly with Europe, but they have world-wide significance. Three main purposes will be accomplished by these documents : First, they will restore the Federal Repub- lic of Germany to a status which will enable it to play a full and honorable part in the family of nations. 395 [151] June 2 Public Papers of the Presidents Second, they will create a common defense organization for six European countries, in- cluding the Federal Republic of Germany, and associate that common defense organi- zation with the North Adantic Treaty. This will greatly strengthen the defense of Europe and the free world against any aggression. Third, they will constitute additional major steps toward unity among the coun- tries of Western Europe — which is so impor- tant for peace and progress in that area. These purposes are all interrelated, and they all serve the common objective of the free nations to create conditions of peace, based on freedom and justice, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It has been a major objective of the United States to help bring about an independent, democratic, and united Germany, and to conclude a treaty of peace with such a Ger- many. That is still our policy, and will continue to be. Unfortunately, as all the world knows, the Soviet Union, while pro- fessing a desire for German unification, has by its actions and policies prevented unifica- tion and the creation of a free all-German Government with which a treaty of peace could be negotiated. Under these circumstances, the United States, France, and Great Britain, 4 years ago, gave the people in Western Germany the chance to create their own democratic Government. They worked out their own constitution, and since September 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany has taken an increasing responsibility for governing the three-fourths of the German people who are free from Soviet control. During this time, the German Government has demonstrated that it is democratic and responsive to the will of the free people of Germany, and that it is able and ready to take its place in the community of free nations and to do its share toward building peaceful and cooperative relationships with other free countries. Over the last 3 years, there has been a continuing process of relaxing occupation controls on the one hand and increasing the scope of the German Federal Govern- ment's responsibilities on the other. Last October, the United States and many other countries concerned ended the technical state of war which had existed with Germany. In these ways, we have gradually been mov- ing away from the original relationship of conqueror and conquered, and moving to- ward the relationship of equality which we expect to find among free men everywhere. Now we are taking another major step in this direction. By the Convention on Rela- tions between the Federal Republic and the United States, France, and Great Britain, we are restoring to the free German people control over their domestic and external affairs, subject only to certain limited excep- tions made necessary by the present inter- national situation. These exceptions relate to the stationing and security of Allied forces in Germany, to Berlin, and to questions of unification, a peace settlement, and other matters concerning Germany as a whole. When the new Convention goes into effect, the Occupation Statute will be repealed, the Allied High Commission will be abolished, and relations between the Federal Republic and other countries will be placed on the customary diplomatic basis. But the Convention on Relations was not, and could not be, prepared as an isolated document, because it does not meet the full problem confronting the free people of Ger- many and those of other free countries. In order to provide for the security of the Fed- eral Republic, and to ensure against any re- vival of militarism, arrangements were worked out under which the Federal Re- public is joining in establishing the Euro- pean Defense Community — the common defense organization of six continental Euro- pean countries. As a member of this Com- munity, the Federal Republic will be able to make a vital contribution to the common defense of Western Europe without the creation of a national German military estab- 396 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 2 [151] lishment. The European Defense Commu- nity, with a common budget and common procurement of military equipment, com- mon uniforms and common training, is a very remarkable advance, representing as it does a voluntary merging of national power into a common structure of defense. As an additional vital safeguard for peace and freedom in Europe, the German Fed- eral Republic, as a member of the European Defense Community, is joining in reciprocal commitments between the members of that Community and the members of the North Atlantic Treaty organization. The protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty extends the ap- plication of the guarantee of mutual assist- ance expressed in Article 5 of the Treaty by providing that an attack on the territory of any member of the European Defense Com- munity, including the German Federal Re- public, or on the Community's forces, shall be considered an attack against all the parties to the Treaty. A reciprocal guarantee is ex- tended to the North Atlantic Treaty part- ners by the members of the Community in a protocol to the Treaty Constituting the Euro- pean Defense Community. Thus, these various documents constitute an integrated whole. The United States is a party only to the Convention on Relations (and the related Conventions) and to the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty, but the Treaty Constituting the European De- fense Community is an essential factor in the new relationship which the Conventions es- tablish. It is expressly provided that the Conventions with the Federal Republic, the Treaty Constituting the European Defense Community, and the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty will come into force simul- taneously, thus assuring the complete inter- relationship of all of them. The participa- tion of the Federal Republic in the European Coal-and-Steel Community (the Schuman Plan) and the European Defense Commu- nity, and the resultant transfer to European agencies of authority over the basic indus- tries of the participating countries and over military activities are the strongest safe- guards for the future security of Western Europe. The successful creation of these European institutions makes possible the re- moval of special restraints which have here- tofore been imposed on the Federal Republic and thereby enables the latter to participate in Western defense on a basis of equality. Thus, while not a party, the United States has a direct and abiding interest in the suc- cess and effectiveness of the Treaty Con- stituting the European Defense Community and in the continuing existence of this Com- munity as constituted. By virtue of the North Atlantic Treaty and the Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States has demonstrated its lasting interest and binding ties with the Atlantic and Eu- ropean communities of nations. By its adherence to the Treaty Constituting the European Defense Community and the Con- vention on Relations, the Federal Republic has linked its future with that of the Com- munity and of the participating countries. It is therefore evident that the United States has acquired a very great stake in the main- tenance of the institutions and relationships thus established and would consider any act which would affect their integrity or existence as a matter of fundamental con- cern to its own interests and security. I stress this point in order to make clear the rela- tionship between the Conventions, the Treaty Constituting the European Defense Community, and the North Atlantic Treaty, and between the parties to these various agreements. The documents I am transmitting to the Senate today are real and significant steps forward toward peace and security in Europe and the whole free world. These actions threaten no one; their only targets are fear and poverty. They will allow almost 50 million free German people to take a further great stride toward independence and self- government, and to join with their neighbors in self-defense. These moves are clearly in 397 [151] June 2 Public Papers of the Presidents the direction of a just and lasting peace; only those with aggressive intent could have any objection to them. The actions represented by these docu- ments will not, of course, wipe out the basic conflicts of policies which underlie the cur- rent tense international situation. But they will, when ratified by the various countries concerned, bring about a fundamental change in the relationships between the free people of Germany and their friends in the free countries of the world. Under this new relationship we will all be able to work together more fully and more effectively to combine our strength not only to deter aggression, but also to bring about the eco- nomic and social progress, and the more harmonious and friendly international rela- tions, to which all free men aspire. I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Conven- tion on Relations and to the protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty transmitted herewith, and give its advice and consent to their rati- fication in order that this great contribution to the strength and unity of the free world can become a reality. Harry S. Truman note: The text of the convention, the protocol, and the related documents is printed in Executives Q and R (82d Cong., 2d sess.). 152 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Awarded to General Eisenhower. ]une 2, 1952 THE PRESIDENT of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress approved July 9, 191 8, has awarded the Distinguished Service Medal (Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster) to GENERAL OF THE ARMY DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER With citation as follows: General of the Army Dwight D. Eisen- hower has distinguished himself in a position of great responsibility by exceptionally meri- torious service to the United States and the member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At an extremely critical and difficult time in the affairs of the free peoples of the world, General of the Army Eisenhower was ap- pointed Supreme Allied Commander, Eu- rope, and was charged with the grave re- sponsibility of planning and welding an ef- fective military structure for the defense of Western Europe. Faced with innumerable, complex problems and hazards inherent in the correlation of national interests with the common welfare and the crystallization of mutual faith, he inspired confidence and united the efforts of the several member na- tions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion, a monumental achievement without historical peacetime precedent. In dis- charging his grave responsibilities he dis- played great and consummate skill, inspira- tional military leadership, indomitable spirit, and the highest order of devotion to the causes of freedom. He symbolized his na- tion's unqualified determination to stand by its Allies. General of the Army Eisenhower's ex- traordinary service merits the gratitude of not only the American people but of free peoples everywhere. Harry S. Truman note: The President presented the medal to General Eisenhower at 4 p.m. in a ceremony held in the Rose Garden at the White House. 398 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 5 [155] 153 Remarks Upon Receiving a Plaque Presented by the Capital Press Club. June 4, 1952 I APPRECIATE this presentation very much. It is certainly kind and thoughtful of your Press Club to remember me in this way. I shall always treasure it, and I hope that I can live up to the sentiments expressed in the sentence which is on the plaque. I am highly appreciative, and thank you very much. note: The plaque was presented to the President at 12:35 p.m. in a ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House. The following inscription appears on the plaque: "In tribute to the Hon. Harry S. Truman, Presi- dent of the United States, who has unequivocably and with valor utilized his Presidential powers of informing the people and molding public opinion to insist that the Nation believe in and live by the Chris- tian ideal of brotherhood and the constitutional prin- ciple of human equality. The Capital Press Club 1952." 154 Remarks to Jimmy Carrick, Winner of "The Kid of the Year" Award. June 4, 1952 the president [in reply to a question by Jimmy Carric\ concerning the President's giving the first pint of blood]. I think you will find that the blood of a 68-year-old man is not fit for the boys. I would be perfectly willing to do it, but then I think if you consult the doctors in charge of this thing, they want young blood. You have done a great thing. I under- stand that you have managed to collect 8,000 pints of blood — sent 40,000 letters to the soldiers and people who are out of the country and in the field. That is a great ex- ample. I wish every one of us would get that same habit, because that would con- tribute greatly to the ease of continuing our defense program on the basis on which it ought to be. I congratulate you. note: The President spoke at 12:45 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In a contest sponsored by the United States Junior Chamber of Commerce, Jimmy Carrick of Pittsburgh, Pa., had been designated "The Kid of the Year." The selection was made from a group of boys and girls between 5 and 15 who had been chosen on the basis of outstanding deeds of heroism, selflessness, and high moral and spiritual character. Jimmy, who had spent most of his 12 years in hos- pitals fighting spinal tuberculosis, was in Washing- ton to begin a 6,000-mile cross-country trip to solicit more blood. 155 Letter to the Chairman, Air Coordinating Committee, Transmitting Report of the Airport Commission. June 5, 1952 Dear Mr. Nyrop: I send you herewith the Report of the Airport Commission which was submitted by General Doolittle and his associates on May 1 6th. This is a most important document. It sets the pattern for future airport develop- ment, taking into consideration the welfare of people who now live near airports, and the continuing well-being of our essential air services, both military and commercial. The recommendations of the Commission appear to be sound, and I am anxious that a prompt analysis of the report be made, in order that implementation may be under- taken. It seems to me that the Air Co- 399 [155] June 5 Public Papers of the Presidents ordinating Committee is the appropriate agency to assume this responsibility. I would appreciate it if your Committee would make an immediate and intensive study of this report and advise me at an early date as to the action that should be taken to put the recommendations of the Commission into effect. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. Donald W. Nyrop, Chairman, Air Coordinat- ing Committee, Washington 25, D.C.] note: The report of the President's Airport Commis- sion, dated May 16, 1952, is entitled "The Airport and Its Neighbors" (Government Printing Office, 116 pp.). On September 3, 1952, the White House issued a statement on the implementation of the Commis- sion's recommendations. The statement noted that the Air Coordinating Committee had devised a plan for dividing up the many recommendations of the Doolittle Commission so that each phase of the problem could be dealt with by the agency concerned. The statement announced diat the President had that day sent letters to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Postmaster General, and the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board asking them to begin immediately to place into effect the Commission's recommendations. The agencies also were asked to consult with State and local governments and interested industry groups in the process of implementing the recommendations. See also Items 40, 41, and release listed in Ap- pendix A under date January 19, 1953. 156 The President's News Conference of June 5, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no announcements this morning. I am ready for questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I have a request from the St. Joseph News-Press, down in your State of Missouri. They said that since you have said last week1 that you would support Buck Taylor for the Senate, they asked me to inquire whether you are going to support Phil Welch or Phil Donnelly for Governor? the president. I have no comment on that. [2.] Q. Mr. President, if we could get on with more politics, General — Mr. Eisen- hower seems to think that one party has been in power too long. Will you com- ment on that? the president. I have no comment. That is up to the people to decide. Q. You wouldn't want to analyze his speech for us? the president. No. I'm not running in the Republican preconvention contest at all. Q. Do you think the General spelled out the issues ? the president. I don't know. I may talk about that later. Q. Did I get you correctly, you are not interested in the Republican preconvention contest at all? the president. No. Q. What was Tony Leviero's 2 question ? the president. He said did the General spell out the issues, and I said I didn't know. [3.] Q. Mr. President, did Senator Ke- fauver, in asking for a conference today, say what he wanted you to do for him today ? the president. I don't know. He hasn't seen me yet. He has got a right to talk to me about anything he wants to, just as any other Senator has, or any other citizen, for that matter. Q. Mr. President, Senator Kefauver said yesterday at his press conference — when asked if he thought you would support his candidacy — he said that you would announce 1 See Item 149 [3]. 1 Anthony H. Leviero of the New York Times. 400 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 5 [156] that you would be neutral in the choice of a candidate and he believed that you would be. Is that so, sir? the president. That is correct. That is correct. [4.] Q. Can you tell us anything about the steel situation? the president. No. I have no comment on it. Q. Do you plan to use the Taft-Hartley law at all? the president. No comment. Q. When could you comment on the Supreme Court decision? 3 the president. Never. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, was that question when will you comment, sir? the president. Yes. Q. Mr. President, you have said that the Supreme Court — that nobody could take away your powers that were inherent in the Constitution. I wonder if you could eluci- date that now? the president. I will at a later date.4 Not today. The best thing for you to do is to read the Constitution of the United States. It can be amended only by one method. [5.] Q. Are you intending to — do you have in mind a message to Congress on new legislation to handle labor disputes? the president. No. Q. None? the president. None in contemplation at the present time. Q. Do you think we need it? the president. I don't know. [6.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to see any other New England political leaders besides Mr. McGrath 5 on that 2-day visit up there ? the president. No, I do not. The Attor- ney General asked me to spend the night at his farm, when I go up there to commission 3 On June 2 the Supreme Court ruled the seizure of the steel plants unconstitutional. * See Item 161. 5 J. Howard McGrath, former Attorney General. that submarine,6 and I accepted the invita- tion. There is no political implication in it whatever. Q. Thank you. the president. Just a social visit. Q. Is that a commissioning, Mr. Presi- dent? the president. I don't know what the proper word to use is. Mr. Short. Keel laying, sir. the president. Keel laying, that's what it is. You don't commission it until they are ready to go to sea. Q. I just wondered, as that one would have come along a little fast. the president. This is a keel laying, so they tell me, whatever it is — a celebration of the power use of atomic energy, and that is what we have been working on for a long time. [7.] Q. Mr. President, when you say that it was correct that you would remain neutral the president. Does that word need a definition ? Q. No sir, but I was wondering if that goes all the way through the convention or up until the convention? the president. I am not making any statements as to the. time limit on what my actions will be. I am a freeborn American citizen, and a delegate to the National Demo- cratic Convention. You wait and see what develops. [Laughter'] Q. As I understand it, you said you did not plan to go? the president. Not until after the Presi- dent is nominated. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to be neu- tral in favor of people or neutral against them? [More laughter] the president. Well, now, I think you are straining a point here. When I say I am neu- tral in this preconvention campaign, I mean just exactly what I say. Q. Mr. President, I didn't quite get your 6 See Item 170. 401 [156] June 5 Public Papers of the Presidents answer to the question on going to Chicago. You say you will not go until after the nominations are made ? the president. After the President is nominated. [Laughter] Q. Well, does that mean you will defi- nitely go ? the president. I intend to go, but I am not going as a Presidential nominee. I am going as a retiring President of the United States. I like to go to conventions. I wish I could go straight through this one, but you know I can't. It will create a disturbance if I go there early. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, there is a question here, on your assertion that you would go to Chi- cago after the President is nominated. You mean after the President is nominated, or after the nominee the president. After the Presidential nominee has been confirmed out there. It will not be the present occupant of the White House, you can be assured of that. [Laugh- ter] Somebody wanted to ask a question ? Q. Just along that line. In the last few days, sir, several Republicans have charged that you are engaged in a devious plot to be nominated. the president. Well, you know charges of that sort usually originate in warped minds. They would try to do the same thing if they had the opportunity. They would like to charge a man who wouldn't do a thing like that with that sort of action. [8.] Q. Mr. President, airpower has ap- parently become an issue between Mr. Taft and Mr. Eisenhower. Do you think air- power will be an issue between Republicans and Democrats? the president. No, I do not. Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the accuracy of Senator Taft's statement, that airpower began to decline while General Eisenhower was Chief of Staff? the president. I have no comment to make on the quarrels in the Republican Party. They please me very much, but I don't want to get mixed up in them! [9.] Q. Mr. President, if — excuse me — getting away from politics for a minute, a group of men's wear merchants met up in Rochester yesterday and made a proposal that when you leave the White House you would be a good man to be what they call the czar of their industry. They say that you are the leading style-setter for men's clothes. Are you looking for work of that kind? [Laughter] the president. Well, now, I should like for them to read the comments of the Eng- lish tailors. [More laughter] Q. We don't consider those comments ac- curate. the president. No, of course not, but then they are working for their own industry and they hoped I would come over there and probably do the same thing you are asking me to do now, which I don't intend to do in either case. [Laughter] [10.] Q. Mr. President, I have a little speech that Representative Jackson of Wash- ington as a member of the Joint Atomic Committee said today Q. Can't hear you. the president. Speak into this thing. Q. Representative Jackson says that Russia is making a truly all-out atomic effort while the United States has adopted a halfway program. I just wonder if you have any comment on atomic energy ? the president. No comment. [11.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us anything about the issues at stake in your correspondence with President Rhee of Korea? the president. That is a message from the head of one state to the message of another, and it is confidential and no comment will be made on it. Q. Have you received a reply ? the president. Not as yet. [12.] Q. Mr. President, Congress has adopted an act — or bill — which you have criticized. How adequate do you consider the amount for foreign aid should be? the president. As soon as I have had a chance to analyze the bill, and when it gets 402 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 7 [157] to my desk, I will comment on it in words that you can understand.7 [I3-] Q« Mr. President, have you made up your mind whether to approve or veto the bill giving the Commissioners authority to appoint a Recorder? the president. It has not come to my desk yet. I will act on it when it comes.8 [14.] Q. Mr. President, does the fact that Margaret and Drucie 9 are going to Europe this summer mean that you don't expect war to break out this summer? the president. That is correct. You don't think I would let them go if I did anticipate war would break out? 7 On June 20 the President approved the Mutual Security Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 141). 8 For the statement by the President upon signing the bill relating to the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia, see Item 160. 0 The President's daughter Margaret and her long- time friend, Mrs. John E. Horton, daughter of the Secretary of the Treasury and Mrs. John W. Snyder. Q. No, I didn't. [At this point there was a pause in the questioning.] the president. Are you out of "soap"? [15.] Q. No sir — I would like to ask, if I may, if you regard the victory of Senator Knowland, whose foreign policy is some- what hostile to yours, as a feeling that the people of California are against your foreign policy? He won both Democratic and Republican nominations. the president. I know nothing about the California situation, but I think we had a very difficult one in 1948, and the Calif or- nians came out all right, and they will this time. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. You're welcome. note: President Truman's three hundred and seventh news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 5, 1952. 157 Remarks at a Breakfast of the 35th Division Association, Springfield, Missouri. ]une 7, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Governor Smith, Mr. Presi- dent of the 35th Division Organization: I could recognize the voice of old Blue and old Bob — I don't know which one was leading — but I couldn't hear a single bark out of the fox. I wish they would put a game rooster on there, instead of that old hound dog, and it wouldn't take him too long to get through! I am appreciative of this signal honor you have conferred on me. You know, as Presi- dent of the United States I have handed out more medals than any other President — may- be as many as all the rest of the Presidents put together. That is due to the fact that we have had so many men who earned these medals. It is one of the most important things, and one of the most pleasant things that I do as President. I just pinned a medal on General Eisen- hower a few days ago in the Rose Garden of the White House. I pinned one on General MacArthur at Wake Island. I pinned one on General Wainwright when he came back from that Japanese prison camp. His was the Congressional Medal of Honor, on ac- count of his actions at the time. And when I went to give him the medal— it has a ribbon that has to be put around the neck — he shed tears, and said he thought I was going to court-martial him when he got back. That is one of the most touching things in regard to medals that I ever had happen to me. I have had many funny things happen to me also. There was this great big, tall cap- tain of infantry, weighing about 200 pounds. When he was a sergeant, he had captured 156 Germans in this little village, and when he ran out of hand grenades he threw rocks; and the Germans came out and surrendered because when the rocks hit the windows they 403 [i57] June 7 Public Papers of the Presidents thought he was still throwing hand gre- nades. And I went to put the ribbon around his neck — I had to tiptoe to reach him — and I said, "Young man, I don't want you throw- ing rocks at me." And he said, "I wouldn't, Mr. President. I'm more scared now than I was then." I appreciate this medal. It is very seldom that the President ever gets a medal. He usu- ally gets brickbats. But when he does get a medal, he highly appreciates it. note: The President spoke at 8:20 a.m. at the Shrine Mosque in Springfield after being presented the "Ozark Hillbilly Medallion of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce" and a certificate proclaim- ing him a hillbilly of the Ozarks. His opening words referred to Lester E. Cox, general chairman of the 35th Division Reunion Corporation, Gover- nor Forrest Smith of Missouri, and Warren L. Os- good, president of the 35th Division Association. At the beginning of his remarks the President referred to a simulated fox hunt performed by Eli Atkinson of Hartville, Mo., who imitated the sounds of the foxes and hounds in the chase. Attendance at a fox hunt was a prerequisite to the President's "citizenship" in the Ozarks. 158 Address in Springfield at the 32d Reunion of the 35th Division Association. ]une 7, 1952 THANK YOU very much. Governor, I thank you very much for that wonderful introduction. I hope I can live up to it. I am very happy to be with you again. I always enjoy these reunions. In my pres- ent position I review a lot more parades, but this is one place where I can march in one, and that is unusual. When I was in St. Louis 2 years ago at the thirtieth reunion of the 35th Division I talked to you about world peace, and about the necessity of building up the defensive strength of all the free nations. A great deal has happened since then. Today I want to talk to you about the progress we have made since 1950. And I want to point out some of the dangers that now threaten us. When I talked to you on June 10, 1950, I told you how the Soviet Union was threat- ening the peace of the world. I told you that the Soviet Union was engaged in a tremen- dous military buildup, and that we, together with our allies, had a long, hard road ahead of us. There were a lot of things on my mind when I made that speech to you in 1950. You will remember that the Soviet Union had set off the first atomic explosion in the fall of 1949. Shortly after that I directed the top officials of our Government to make a new study of the foreign policies and the military potential of the Soviet Union, taking into account the fact that the Soviet Union now had the secret of the atomic bomb. I directed our officials to try to find out whether the Soviet Union was headed for war, and what we should do to deter and prevent such a conflict. These officials worked together through the new National Security Council, under my direction, and it came up with their pre- liminary answers in April 1950. These answers presented us with some very difficult problems. It seemed clear, as a result of this study, that the United States and all other free nations were faced with a great and growing danger. It seemed clear that we could meet the danger only by mobilizing our strength — and the strength of our allies — to check and deter aggression. This meant a great mili- tary effort in time of peace. It meant dou- bling or tripling the budget, increasing taxes heavily, and imposing various kinds of eco- nomic controls. It meant a great change in our normal peacetime way of doing things. These were the problems that were being laid on my desk at the time I spoke to you in St. Louis in 1950. Just 3 weeks later the Communists invaded the Republic of Korea. That made the danger clear to everyone. The invasion of 404 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 7 [158] Korea demonstrated to all free nations that they had to have much stronger defenses to prevent Soviet conquest. As a result, the free nations have been moving forward since the middle of 1950 to build bigger defenses. Our own country has taken the lead, because we are the strongest of the free nations. We have made a lot of progress in 2 years. We have reached a number of the goals we set for ourselves back in 1950. We still have a long way to go in many respects, but if we stick to our course we can create the kind of strong, free world that we need to guaran- tee security and peace. We can win the peace. And we are go- ing to win the peace. Now there has been a lot of loose talk late- ly to the effect that our defense program has been a failure. Much of this talk is politi- cally inspired — the kind of talk you would expect in an election year. But I want to set the record straight. I want the people to have the facts about our defense program and our national security. Let me give you some examples. Two years ago we had an Air Force of 48 wings, with 400,000 men on duty and less than 9,000 planes in active use. Now we have an Air Force of 91 wings, with almost a million men on duty and nearly 15,000 planes in active use. These figures refer to the Air Force only, they do not include the big build- up of airpower in the Navy and the Marine Corps. The goal we set in 1950 called for a 95- wing Air Force by midsummer 1952. Ninety-one of those wings are now operat- ing, with new and better planes coming into service all the time. Within 2 months we expect the four remaining wings to be in operation also. In the last 2 years we have tooled up the aircraft industry to produce the best planes being built anywhere in the world. And we are turning them out — now listen to this — at better than four times the pre-Korean rate. Some of you may not realize what a great accomplishment this really is. We all re- member how rapidly our factories turned out planes in World War II and we are inclined to think we should be able to do the same thing now without any trouble at all. But the program is a very different one today. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that the planes we are building now are far heavier, far faster, and far more complicated than those we were building 7 years ago. A new jet fighter bears about as much relation to the old P-40 as a 1952 Cadillac or Chrysler bears to a model T Ford. Both planes fly, and there the simi- larity ends. The design, the power unit, the fire controls — and everything else — are different, and far more difficult to make. And it is the same way with all our new models. The second reason is that we are in a race for technical supremacy. The nation that freezes its models too soon will be a nation with an obsolete, inferior air force. In World War II it was my business to investigate the construction of airplanes, and at that time it took 18 months to get a plane from the drawing board off the end of the line. When that plane came off the end of the line it was obsolete. We don't want a situation like that, and we are not going to have it. The air force we are building now is an air force of the highest quality we can possibly provide. We are concentrating on produc- tion of the very latest types of planes — and we are constantly working to design and produce even better planes. We are not trying to build the biggest air force in the world. We are trying to build the best one — backed up by the industrial capacity to expand it rapidly if need be, and keep it always up to date. Of course, this costs money. It costs a lot of money. You may have heard some non- sense in recent days to the effect that we could save money on our national defense by building up a gigantic air force. Anyone 55-672— 66 405 [158] June 7 Public Papers of the Presidents who has that idea forgets that modern air- power is a very expensive propositon. Some of our new jet fighters cost as much as $600,000 — nine times the price of the average fighter plane used in World War II. A B-36 bomber costs $5 million today, when everything is figured in, compared with only $800,000 for the B-29, 7 or 8 years ago. And the B-29 is just as obsolete now as the cars of 1938. We need new appro- priations of more than $22 billion this com- ing fiscal year just for the Air Force, of which $11 billion is to buy new aircraft. A big, powerful air force is an absolute necessity and we are going to have one. But don't let anybody tell you that it won't cost money. It will cost a lot of money. Our plans now call for building up from 95 to 143 active wings in 2 or 3 years. We have a similar expansion under way for the air units of the Navy. These will be terrifi- cally powerful air forces when we get them all complete. And at the same time our air- craft industry will be ready to go rapidly into full-scale war production of the latest models, should that need ever arise. God forbid that it should ever arise. We are making progress in building up our air forces here at home without in any way neglecting the needs of the forces in Korea. There has been a terrible amount of mis- information about our situation in the air in Korea. To hear some people talk, you would think we were completely outclassed over there — and at the mercy of the Russian- made enemy air force. In the air combat in Korea our planes have knocked the Russians out at the rate of 8 to 1. You can read that in the newspapers if you want to. They can't prevent us from publishing that. You know that isn't true about our not being properly prepared in Korea. Here are the facts. We have been able to maintain air supremacy over most of North Korea. That means we can bomb the enemy at will, almost anywhere in his territory. At the northern border, on the Yalu River, we do not have supremacy, but we do have clear superiority in airpower — which means we can reach our objectives, even though we have to fight off opposition. We owe a greater debt than we can ever pay to all the gallant airmen who have fought so valiantly to hold the Korean air for the United Nations. It is our duty to make sure they receive the finest and most efficient modern weapons to keep up the fight. And that we are doing. The United Nations Forces in the air are being kept sup- plied with the planes they need for the tasks assigned to them. All we have done and are doing to build up our airpower is matched by our expand- ing land and seapower. The United States Army has been doubled in size these last 2 years. And it is being reequipped with the finest of modern weapons. These weap- ons would astonish you. We are getting these weapons now, in quantity. For example, one of our best new tanks is now coming off the production line at the rate of well over 300 a month — and the rate is rising very fast. As for the Navy, there are twice as many ships in full operation now as before Korea. And our naval ships and weapons are im- proving all the time. There are some amazing new technical developments in the Navy. I shall have more to say on that subject next week, up in New London, Conn. With all the progress we have made, we still have a long way to go before we reach the strength we now consider necessary to the national security. We have just about reached the objectives for this summer that were set out 2 years ago, when the mobiliza- tion program first began. If we can do as well in the next 2 years, we shall have a right to be proud of ourselves, and to feel that the world is safe. Two years ago, when I was talking with you in St. Louis, I said a good deal about the need to help our allies build up their defen- sive power. The study that was made by the National Security Council in 1950 made it perfecdy 406 Harry S. Truman, J952 June 7 [158] plain we could be secure against the Com- munist menace only if other free nations were secure, too — only if the strength of our allies was added to our own. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was just getting started at that time. To be effective it needed many things. It needed a more closely knit, a more clearly unified Europe behind it. And it needed real arms and real fighting forces. Those were some of our problems 2 years ago, and great progress has been made in solving them. Just last week Secretary Acheson came back from Germany and France. And he brought with him a series of treaties and agreements vitally affecting the defense of Europe. I have sent these treaties and agree- ments to the Senate, so that they can be ratified as soon as possible. These docu- ments will make free Germany an equal member of the European community of free nations and will associate Germany in an integrated European defense force. This European defense force will be a part of the NATO forces under General Ridgway. The plans for this European defense force are a tremendous step toward European unity and security. It is vitally important that we ratify the documents necessary to make this force a reality. Once these docu- ments are in effect, there will be a new Europe, with a greater power to defend itself. During these 2 years, while this European army plan has been worked out, the Euro- pean countries have been doing a great deal to build up their individual defense forces. Take airpower, for example. With our help there will be 60 wings in Europe under NATO command by the end of this year. Within 2 years, if present plans are carried out — if everything is not ruined in this so- called "economy" drive — the number will have risen very substantially. Of course, these NATO forces will be equipped partly with American planes. But about 60 per- cent of their equipment will be French and British models. And these European planes are comparable to the best that we produce. The story is the same with the land forces and the sea forces under the NATO com- mand. Wherever you look, you will find growing military strength in Europe, strength that we can count on. This is the record of the things we have done. These last 2 years have been a period of great achievement. But our very suc- cesses have created a new danger for us — the danger of apathy and complacency. So far, we have been able to avert world war III. Because of that fact, people are beginning to relax. Living in the middle of a world crisis for 2 years is beginning to make some of us indifferent to danger. Some people are forgetting about national security and thinking how nice it would be to economize and have lower taxes. Well, everybody wants to economize and everybody wants lower taxes, but they don't want to economize and have lower taxes at the expense of the complete destruction of the free world. And that is what we are faced with. It is easy to fall into this attitude. You can find this attitude running through labor, through industry, through the Congress. But the cold fact is that we are still in great danger. We cannot tell what the Kremlin is planning. There may be new offensives in Korea. There may be new Koreas in other parts of the globe. The Communists: may even be planning greater attacks than we have seen up to this point. We do not know. We cannot be sure. There is no excuse for lying back and be- ing indifferent to the national security* There is no justification for slashing appro- priations for defense for the aid of our allies. But that is exactly what a group of short- sighted politicians are trying to do. And: they are doing it for strictly political pur- poses, political propaganda, and political "hooey." That is what it amounts to. This is not the year to play around with meat axes in the field of national security.. The Communists are building up forces in Korea and other parts of Asia. In Europe 407 [158] June 7 Public Papers of the Presidents the Russians are threatening Berlin. Com- munist parties are staging riots in Paris and Tokyo. The Kremlin is not going to take a vaca- tion just because we are having a Presiden- tial election in this country. Far from it. The Kremlin is going to make the most of this year to try to frighten the West — to try to undermine the morale of the free na- tions and split them apart. Now, I am in favor of economy — of elimi- nating waste. But slashing appropriations for defense is not economy. It is playing with fire. The dollars that are saved in that way aren't going to help us much if we lack the planes, or the tanks, or our allies we need in the critical hour of danger. Two years ago, when I talked to you in St. Louis, I spelled out the dangers we were facing, and the need for strong defense. To- day, after 2 years of progress in building up those defenses — after 2 years of armed conflict against aggression — I am sure you will agree with me when I say we must not weaken, we must not waver, we must not relax in the effort we are making for the de- fense of the free world. I think that every veteran knows what preparedness means. And I think it is the duty of every veteran to stand up and say to his friends, to his local organization, to his Congressmen: No false economy. No fool- ing around with the security of this country for petty political gain. No trifling with the mighty effort of this great Nation to lead the world to peace. I am sure that I can count on you people here today to take that stand. I think you veterans also understand that the purpose of our defense program is peace. Peace — peace is what I have been working for for the last 7 long years. The only rea- son in the world for our defense program and our mutual security program is to pre- vent aggression and deter war. I am sure that goal is worth the price we are paying. I am confident that if we carry these pro- grams forward successfully, we can bring about peace in the world. And may God help us to bring it about. note: The President spoke at noon at the Shrine Mosque in Springfield, Mo. In his opening re- marks he referred to Governor Forrest Smith of Missouri. For the President's address on world peace in St. Louis, June 10, 1950, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 162. For the President's message to Congress trans- mitting a convention on relations with Germany and the related documents, see Item 151. The 3 2d annual reunion of the 35 th Division Association was held in Springfield, June 6-8, 1952. The address was carried on a nationwide broadcast. 159 Letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on the Steel Strike. ]une 9, 1952 Dear Senator Mayban\: I am informed that the Senate may take some action today with respect to the current dispute in the steel industry. If the Senate should do this, the results might be very harmful. The parties to the dispute are now nego- tiating for a settlement of the dispute. No one can be sure of the outcome of these negotiations. However, the parties on both sides appear to be earnestly seeking a setde- ment, and there is at least a reasonable hope that they will be successful — unless some- thing is done on the outside to upset the present bargaining situation. Everyone must agree that a settiement by the parties is by far the best thing that could happen in the national interest. When we may be on the verge of achieving that, any action which prevented it would be tragic. In the present circumstances, any action by the Senate — even though it would not be- 408 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 9 [160] come applicable immediately or even though it might be only an expression of the Senate's views — could so alter the situation or the at- titudes of the parties in this case as to cause a breakdown in their negotiations. I earnestly ask the Senate not to do this. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Burnet R. Maybank, Chairman, Com- mittee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.] note: As released by the White House the letter was addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President o£ the Senate of the United States. Since the Vice President was out of town, the letter was recalled at the suggestion of Senator Ernest W. Mc- Farland, Chairman of the Majority Policy Commit- tee, and was readdressed to Senator Maybank. 160 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia. ]une 9, 1952 I HAVE today approved S. 2871, "Relating to the manner of appointment of the Re- corder of Deeds of the District of Columbia, the deputy recorders, and the employees of the Office of Recorder, and for other purposes." I have approved this bill only because I believe the principles underlying it are sound in that they advance the even more important principle of home rule for the District of Columbia through the delegation by the Congress of an important administrative re- sponsibility for the conduct of District affairs to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The Recorder of Deeds and staff of his Office under this legislation will become civil servants appointed in accordance with the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949. Present employees of the Office will be given an opportunity to obtain civil service status after examination by the Civil Service Commission. Any who fail to meet the requirements for full civil service status will be retained in their present capacities long enough to permit them to find other employment. These provisions are consist- ent with the extension of the civil service and with the granting of home rule responsibilities. The bill has added a further requirement to present law. It restricts the appointment to the Office of Recorder of Deeds to persons who have been residents of the District of Columbia for at least 5 years immediately prior to appointment. Whether such a limi- tation will turn out to be wise is a matter which only the passage of time can decide. It is conceivable that it may restrict the Com- missioners to the appointment of a person who is not the best qualified man for the job. In this connection, I wish to make it clear that when a vacancy in the office oc- curred some months ago, I nominated, after consideration of the qualifications of a num- ber of persons, the man who, in my judg- ment, had the best qualifications for the job. The Senate chose not to take action on this nomination. It has now joined with the House of Representatives in enacting this bill. I accept this action of the Congress, but I cannot sign the measure without again stating publicly my support of my nominee. I believe that he was the best qualified can- didate available, and I am convinced that he would have served the people of the District of Columbia loyally and with distinction. I hope that the Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia will fill this position promptly and that the period of suspense and uncertainty for the employees of the Office of the Recorder of Deeds will end as soon as is possible under the new law. note: As enacted, S. 2871 is Public Law 379, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 129). 409 [161] June 10 Public Papers of the Presidents 161 Special Message to the Congress on the Steel Strike. ]une io, 1952 [As delivered in person before a joint session] Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, Members of the Congress: I should like to report to the Congress on certain events that have happened in con- nection with the current dispute in the steel industry since I last communicated with the Congress on that subject. On April 9, I informed the Congress that I had taken action to provide for temporary operation of the steel mills by the Govern- ment. At that time, I indicated the reasons that had impelled me to take that action. I pointed out that the Congress might wish to take action providing for a different solu- tion of the grave problem confronting the Nation as a result of the steel dispute. I also said that, if the Congress did not act, I would continue to do everything in my power to keep the steel industry operating and to bring about a settlement of the dispute. The Congress took no action. Accordingly, Government operation of the mills continued and intensive efforts were made to bring the parties into agreement. Meetings between the parties were held from April 9 to April 15, and on May 3 and 4. But their differences on a number of issues were so great that no setdement could be reached. Meanwhile, some of the steel companies had instituted court proceedings for the pur- pose of challenging the President's power to keep the steel mills in operation. This case reached the Supreme Court, and on Monday, June 2, a majority of that Court decided that the President did not have the power, in this instance, to operate the mills. I immediately ordered that Government possession of the mills be relinquished. On the same day, a strike was called and most of the steel industry was shut down. Thus, the situation that I had sought to avoid was brought about. I had managed to keep steel production going from the end of December to the 2d of June — a period of more than 150 days — even though the com- panies and the union had no collective bar- gaining contract. Now it had been made impossible for me to prevent a break in production. Very shortly thereafter, I was informed there was a reasonable prospect that the parties might be able to reach a settlement of their dispute if they could be brought together again to negotiate. I have said repeatedly that the ultimate and proper settlement of this matter can be achieved only by agreement between the parties. Consequently, I have sought at every opportunity to help bring about such an agreement. That, obviously, was the step that was called for in the circumstances prevailing last week. Moreover, it seemed essential that the negotiations be given every possible chance to succeed — that no other action be taken which would be likely to make either party unwilling or unable to negotiate in good faith. That is the course that was followed. The parties were called back into negotia- tions. They met from Thursday, June 5, until Monday, June 9. Although they made some progress, they were not able to reach a final agreement. We are now, therefore, faced with the necessity of using some other means for getting the steel mills back into production. When the negotiations were broken off, last night, representatives of the parties indi- cated that they would "cooperate in assuring production of military requirements essen- tial to our forces engaged in combatting Communist aggressors." This morning, I have instructed Dr. Steelman, Acting Direc- tor of Defense Mobilization, and Mr. Lovett, the Secretary of Defense, to arrange with the companies and the union to meet as many of 410 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 10 [161] our urgent military requirements as possible under this pledge. It is impossible to determine at this time just how much steel can be obtained in this manner. We should be able to meet our most critical military needs. But, at the same time, we cannot expect to get enough steel in this way to meet all the essential needs of the defense program. The fact is that we need steel, not just for immediate combat requirements, but also for equipping all our Armed Forces — and to help equip those of our allies. We need steel for constructing defense plants and new atomic energy installations. There are vital industrial requirements for steel — for such items as power generating equipment, freight cars, and oil producing equipment. These needs are very urgent and must not be indefinitely delayed by a steel shutdown. Our national security depends upon our total economic strength, and steel is a basic element in that strength. Consequently, we are faced with the im- perative need for getting most, if not all, of the Nation's steel mills back into production very promptly. There are several possible courses of action that might be followed. However, I believe there are two main possibilities. One of these is Government operation of the steel mills. The other is the use of a labor in- junction of the type authorized by the Taft- Hartley law. The Congress can choose either of these two courses. I cannot. I could only use the Taft-Hartley approach. In my judgment, that is by far the worse of the two approaches. Consequently, I feel that I should put the facts before the Congress, recommend the course of action I deem best, and call upon the Congress — which has the power to do so — to make the choice. I believe the Congress should make its choice with a view of bringing about three objectives: first, to secure essential steel pro- duction; second, to assure fair treatment to both parties, in accordance with sound price and wage stabilization policies; third, to en- courage the parties to settle their differences through collective bargaining. Each of these objectives is important to the national interest, and the Congress should act to serve all of them. I believe the course which is most likely to achieve these objectives is to enact legis- lation authorizing the Government to take over the steel plants and to operate them temporarily until the parties reach a setde- ment. This is the course I recommend. A seizure law, if properly drafted, can achieve the objectives of assuring steel pro- duction, treating both parties fairly, and en- couraging collective bargaining. The key requirement of such a law, if it is to accom- plish these ends, is to provide for fair and just compensation to the owners for the use of their property during a seizure, and fair and just compensation for the work of the employees. The Constitution protects the owners of property during a period of Government op- eration by requiring that they be given just compensation — and they can appeal to the courts to enforce that requirement. The law should give similar protection to wage earners. This means that changes in wages and working conditions during seizure should not be prevented by law. If they were, the seizure would mean that workers would be compelled to work indefinitely without a change in wages, no matter how much a change might be justified. This is obviously not equal justice under the law. In order to be fair, the law must provide for a method of determining just compensa- tion for the owners and the workers during the period of Government operation. This can be done by the establishment of special boards to work out specific proposals for the purpose, within the general framework of the Government's stabilization policies. In this way, the legislation can assure continued steel production, and fair treatment for both parties during Government operation. Seizure should not, of course, be regarded 411 [i6i] June 10 Public Papers of the Presidents as a means of determining the issues in dis- pute between management and the union. Those issues will have to be settled by the parties through their own collective bar- gaining. Legislation providing for Govern- ment operation will not prevent collective bargaining. As a matter of fact, the type of legislation I have described will undoubt- edly increase the incentives for the parties to settle their differences through bargaining. The companies will face the possibility of receiving something less than their normal profits as just compensation. And the work- ers will face the prospect of getting less than they think they are entitled to. Indeed, I made this plain on May 3, when I informed the parties that Government changes in wages and working conditions would not be satisfactory to either side. I therefore recommend that the Congress promptly enact seizure legislation such as I have described, which will restore full-scale steel production, provide fair treatment for all concerned, and maintain incentives for both parties to reach agreement on the dis- puted issues through collective bargaining. There is another course which the Con- gress could follow. That would be to enact legislation authorizing and directing the President to seek an injunction of the type authorized under the Taft-Hartley Act, but without going through the formality of appointing a board of inquiry and waiting for its report. I do not recommend that the Congress adopt the Taft-Hartley approach. I think it would be unwise, unfair, and quite possi- bly ineffective. The Nation has already had the benefit of whatever could be gained by action under the Taft-Hartley Act. That act provides for two main things. It provides for a fact- finding board to investigate and report on the issues in dispute. In the steel case, we have already had the facts fully determined and reported by the Wage Stabilization Board. The Taft-Hartley Act also provides for injunctions against a shutdown for a total of 80 days. In the steel case, the union already, even before April 8, had voluntarily postponed strike action for 99 days. Insofar as factfinding and delay are concerned, there- fore, the practical effects of the Taft-Hartley Act were achieved in this case some time ago. Over and above these facts, however, there are other compelling reasons for not using an injunction of the Taft-Hartley type in the steel case. Its effect would be to require the workers to continue working for another long period without change in their wages and working conditions. This would be grossly unfair. The Wage Stabilization Board, the Government agency charged with the responsibility in these matters, has found — and the companies have admitted — that the workers are entitled to improve- ments in wages and working conditions. The union members stayed at work, at the Government's request, during the period the case was being considered by the wage board, and later during the period of Government operation from April 8 to June 2. In these respects, the union and its members have cooperated fully with the Government in the public interest. And yet the effect of a Taft-Hartley labor injunction would be to penalize the workers and to give the ad- vantage to the steel companies. I want to make it very plain to the Congress that the result of using a Taft-Hartley type injunc- tion in this dispute would be to take sides with the companies and against the workers. Furthermore, a Taft-Hartley injunction would take away management's incentive to bargain and to work out the issues in dis- pute. The companies would have nothing to lose and everything to gain by delaying an agreement for as long as the injunction was in effect. Thus a Taft-Hartley injunc- tion in this case would not only be unfair, it would hamper, rather than help, the col- lective bargaining negotiations. Moreover, use of the Taft-Hartley law would not guarantee a restoration of full- scale steel production, which should be our primary objective. Nothing in the act can 412 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 10 [161] restore steel production immediately or auto- matically. As the Congress knows, the first step that must be taken under the act is to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate and report the facts of the matter. Previous experience indicates that it could take as much as a week or 10 days for such a board to complete its task. If such a board were appointed and made its report, and the At- torney General were directed to seek an injunction against a strike, the question would arise whether a court of equity would grant the Attorney General's request, in view of the union's previous voluntary 99-day postponement. Furthermore, even if an in- junction were granted, there is no assurance that it would get the steel mills back in operation. I call the attention of the Con- gress to the fact that such an injunction did not get the coal mines back in operation in 1950. If, however, the judgment of the Congress, contrary to mine, is that an injunction of the Taft-Hartley type should be used, there is a quicker way to do so than by appointing a board of inquiry under the Taft-Hartley Act. That would be for the Congress to enact legislation authorizing and directing the President to seek such an injunction, without waiting for any board to be appointed and to report. I do not want to be misunderstood. I be- lieve the Taft-Hartley procedure would be unfair, harmful, and futile — futile at least in helping to bring about a settlement, and per- haps also in restoring production. I hope very much that the Congress will decide that the Taft-Hartley type of injunction should not be used at all and that seizure legislation should be enacted instead. In any event, I hope the Congress will act quickly. The issue of peace or war hangs in the balance, and steel is a vital element in that outcome. We are engaged, with other free coun- tries, in a mighty effort to build up the mili- tary defenses of the free world. We must build up this military strength if we are to have a reasonable chance of preventing world war III. But we cannot do it without steel, for steel is the backbone of our defense production, and, indeed, of our whole indus- trial society. Every action I have taken in the dispute in the steel industry, beginning last Decem- ber, has been based on the paramount neces- sity for maintaining the production of essen- tial steel products in the present defense emergency. When I took the extraordinary step of seizure in the absence of specific statutory authority, I pointed out that "with American troops facing the enemy on the field of battle, I would not be living up to my oath of office if I failed to do whatever is required to provide them with the weapons and ammunition they need for their sur- vival." Now a majority of the Supreme Court have declared that I cannot take the action I believe necessary. But they have said very clearly that the Congress can take that action. Whatever may have been the intention of the Court's majority in setting limits on the President's powers, there can be no question of their view that the Congress can enact legislation to avoid a crippling work stop- page in the steel industry. Mr. Justice Black said the Congress "can authorize the taking of private property for public use. It can make laws regulating the relationships be- tween employers and employees, prescribing rules designed to settle labor disputes, and fixing wages and working conditions." Mr. Justice Frankfurter said that by enacting the Taft-Hartley Act, the Congress in effect de- cided "the only recourse for preventing a shutdown in any basic industry, after failure of mediation, is the Congress." Mr. Justice Jackson referred to "the ease, the expedition, the safety with which Congress can grant" emergency powers of the type needed to handle this crisis. The issue is squarely up to you gendemen of the Congress. I hope the Congress will meet it by enacting fair and effective legislation. 55-672—66 413 [161] June 10 Public Papers of the Presidents note: The President spoke at 12:30 p.m. Shortly after the President's appearance before the joint session of the Congress, the Senate rejected a proposal conforming to his recommendations, 47 to 32. Two other seizure proposals were also rejected. The Senate then voted, 49 to 30, to request the President to make use of the provisions of the Taft- Hartley Act. For the President's April 9 message to Congress concerning Government seizure of the steel mills, see Item 83. 162 Memorandum Transmitting an Exchange of Correspondence Between the President and Senator Russell Regarding the Communist Prisoners Interned on Koje Island. June n, 1952 Memorandum for: Secretary of Defense Attached is copy of a letter from Senator Russell, which I think has a lot of merit. It seems to me that it would be well to ask Sweden, Switzerland, India, Pakistan and Indonesia to send military men to Korea to take a look at the situation and see what really is happening. Senator Russell's letter is self explanatory. Harry S. Truman. note: See Item 163. 163 Letter to Senator Russell on the Prison Camps on Koje Island. ]une n, 1952 DearDic\: I appreciated very much your letter of the tenth as the result of our conversation yes- terday on the situation in Korea. I hope we can get a concrete result. I am enclosing for you a copy of a memo- randum which I have just sent to the Secre- tary of Defense, and a copy of a memoran- dum I have just sent to the Secretary of the Army Frank Pace. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman. [Honorable Richard B. Russell, United States Sen- ate, Washington, D.C.] note: Senator Russell's letter follows: Dear Mr. President: The situation resulting from the loss of control of the prisoner of war camps on Koje-do Island is, I am sure, of great concern to both of us. The Sen- ate Committee on Armed Services has conducted hearings on this matter and I have given it a great deal of study. A core of fanatical Communists have apparently assumed complete control of the prisoner of war compounds. All of their actions are undoubtedly directed by higher authority for the sole purpose of giving our enemies grist for their propaganda mill which is devoted to discrediting this country in the eyes of the world. We know that we have leaned over backwards to accord to every Communist prisoner of war taken in battle every right and privilege to which he is entitled by the Geneva Convention. We have done this despite the fact that the Communist enemy will not permit officials of the International Red Cross, who constantly observe our every act on Koje-do, to even visit our own soldiers who have fallen into the hands of the Communists. Our leniency has been so extreme as to be an un- doubted factor in the revolt against authority which resulted in the capture of General Dodd by his pris- oners. It is essential that order be restored in these Communist prisoner of war compounds and that those prisoners recognize the authority of their cap- tors— the forces of the United Nations. Our ex- perience indicates that the fanatical Communists who are now in authority in these compounds are determined to use violence against legal authority for propaganda purposes. The orders of rulers who occupy positions of safety will cause the loss of life and injury to their poor puppets who have fallen into our hands. The problem of assuming and maintaining con- trol of these compounds is essentially a military problem. The difficulties which confront us will be much better understood by men of military ex- 414 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 11 [165] pcrience than by the officials o£ the International Red Cross. To nullify the mass o£ falsehoods which are being broadcast to the world by the Communist propa- ganda machine and to enable free people everywhere to understand the truth of Koje Island, I wish to suggest that military observers of high rank and broad military experience from the other free na- tions of the earth be invited to visit Koje Island to observe the conduct of the operations necessary for us to enforce the rules of the Geneva Conven- tion upon the thousands of Communist prisoners interned there. I regard it as being particularly important that military observers from India, Pakistan and In- donesia be urged to attend as observers, though in my opinion, it would be wise to invite such ob- servers from all of the free nations who have not furnished military units to the United Nations forces in Korea. We know that the truth of our actions on Koje-do will refute all of the falsehoods being spread by the Communists and it should be extremely helpful to have reports from their own high ranking officials available to all of the free peoples of the earth. It will not only refute the false charges made by the Communists in regard to our actions on that small island, but will go a long ways to show to the free peoples of the earth that they cannot believe the false and highly colored charges of the Communists as to our intentions and purposes in all of the fields of international relations. With assurances of esteem, I am Respectfully, Richard B. Russell See also Item 162. 164 Remarks to Members of the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants From Europe. ]une ii? 1952 I AM very much pleased to have you here today. I hope we can accomplish the pur- poses set forth in the message in the proposed bill that is now before the two committees in the House and the Senate, and continue to help those refugees who certainly deserve our help and support. It is a pleasure to me to welcome you here at the White House today. note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The Third Session of the Provisional Intergovernmental Committee was held in Washington, June 10-13, I952« The Supplemental Appropriation Act, approved July 15, authorized $9,240,500 for the work of the Committee (66 Stat. 637). 165 Remarks to Members of the United States Attorneys Association. June n, 1952 THANK YOU, Mr. Attorney General. I know very well that the people here do ac- tually represent the welfare of the United States as a whole. Now I have been in elective public office for 30 years. I have been in politics for 40 or 45 years, and I understand the political approach to most of these things that are being done and have been done. But when it comes right down to the basis of the Government, it is entirely safe in your hands, Mr. Attorney General, and in the hands of these good people here. As I said to you once before, your objec- tive is to enforce the law, but in enforcing the law you must see that the individual has justice, and receives the proper treatment under the Bill of Rights. In my opinion, the Bill of Rights is the greatest part of the Constitution, and when we do not enforce the Bill of Rights — and I am sorry to say that there are some committees in the Con- gress that don't know there is a Bill of Rights in the Constitution — we are doing the coun- try a disservice. We don't want anybody to get away with criminal action. We don't want any crooks left out of jail when they do crooked things, 415 [165] June 11 Public Papers of the Presidents but neither do we want to be in the position of character assassins for the purpose of publicity — and I fear very much that is one of the things that has been going on here lately in our public service. I am counting on you not only to enforce the law, but to see that the Bill of Rights is lived up to, in spirit as well as to the letter. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 3:20 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening words he referred to Attorney General James P. McGranery. 166 The President's News Conference of June 12, 1952 the president. I have no announcements to make. I will try to answer questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could tell us now whether you plan to invoke the Taft-Hartley Act in view of the congres- sional votes ? 1 the president. No, I have no comment to make on it. [2.] Q. Mr. President, as Commander in Chief, what is your attitude toward apply- ing the Army's regulation that bears on polit- ical activities of any general ? the president. I have no comment. The Army is handling that. [3.] Q. Could you tell us any more about your conversation with Senator Russell on his plan for Koje? the president. I beg your pardon ? Q. Could you tell us some more about your conversation with Senator Russell on his plan for Koje? the president. There is nothing more to say except what you saw in the paper. I released the letter he wrote me, and my reply.2 [4.] Q. Mr. President, will you have any announcement on the recommendation for a judgeship to fill the vacancy in South Carolina? the president. Yes, I will — some time 1 On June 1 1 the Senate rejected, by a vote of 54 to 26, a proposal introduced by Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon which would have given the Presi- dent the seizure powers he had requested (see Item 161). 2 See Items 162, 163. Q. The next week or two ? the president. Well, I don't know how soon it will take. As quickly as I can make the investigation. [5.] Q. Mr. President, since the steel wage talks broke down, the companies have been saying that the sole remaining issue is that of the union shop. Do you believe that is the fact? the president. I don't know anything about it. I didn't carry on the negotiations. Q. In your conversation this morning with Senator Morse, was that matter mentioned? the president. I beg your pardon? Q. In your conversation this morning with Senator Morse, was the steel question mentioned ? the president. Oh, yes, it was discussed. Nobody ever comes in there that doesn't discuss it. Senator Morse didn't see fit to quote me, and I shall not quote him. Q. Mr. President, do you think that the limited production plan that has been pro- posed by steel labor and steel management will come anywhere near meeting our de- fense needs? the president. They are meeting on that situation right now, and I can't give you an answer until I find out just what the facts are. [6.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisen- hower was quoted this morning as saying that $40 billion could be cut out of the budget. Do you agree with that? the president. I have no comment. I think Mr. Taft answered him, I'm not sure. [Laughter] 416 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 12 [166] [7.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any plans to invoke the Selective Service Act in connection with steel ? THE PRESIDENT. No. [8.] Q. Mr. President, as a political ex- pert, how do you think General Eisenhower's campaign is going? the president. Well, now, I would rather not comment on the opposition. When the time comes, I will have a lot of comment to make on all these things, but I am not ready yet. [9.] Q. Mr. President, are you contem- plating asking any review of the Korean situation by the United Nations? the president. The United Nations is represented over there, and they are con- stantly reviewing it. Q. But nothing new — no general review? the president. No. [10.] Q. Mr. President, do you contem- plate any action in regard to the threatened drought out in the Middle West? the president. What can I do? I can't make it rain — [laughter] — although we have a lot of rainmakers these days. I don't think it's as bad now as it has been previous to this. They had a lot of rain in Texas and New Mexico. [11.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on President Rhee's closing the Voice of America broadcasts in Korea? the president. No comment. No com- ment. Q. Mr. President- the president. The State Department an- swered that, I think, this afternoon. What is it? [12.] Q. There was a story in one of the papers today that tactical atomic weapons will be used in Korea, if the Communist army launches a mass attack the president. I don't intend to discuss tactics and technique in field maneuvers. That is not my job. [13.] Q. Mr. President, there was a re- port awhile back that the whistlestop cam- paign, and most other campaigning, would be along the route of the coaxial cable, be- cause it would be the best television possible. Lots of people in the country as yet don't have television. I wonder if you will see to it that your campaign will be spread out the president. They have 47 million sets in use. I don't believe they would have that 47 million if we hadn't been a little prosper- ous during the last 7 years. [Laughter] Q. Will you follow just the television around, or will you the president. I shall go wherever the National Committee requests me to go. Q. Mr. President the president. I can put on a pretty good show myself, television or no television. [More laughter] What is it? [14.] Q. Will you comment on the pro- posed trip of the Secretary of State to Bra- zil? the president. He will make the neces- sary comment on that.3 I shall not comment on it at this time. [15.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the immigration bill which the president. It has not reached my desk as yet. As soon as it reaches my desk, I will comment on it and you shall know all about it.4 Q. Are you going to veto it? the president. I can't answer that ques- tion until I read the bill. [ 16. ] Q. Mr. President, after he left your office this afternoon, Senator Lucas said that he was of the opinion that Governor Steven- son can be drafted for the Democratic nomi- nation. Do you share that opinion, sir? the president. I am not in a position to give you an intelligent answer to that. Sen- ator Lucas 5 is a resident of Illinois, and I 3 The text of the statement by Secretary of State Dean Acheson is printed in the Department of State Bulletin (vol. 27, p. 6). 4 For the President's statement upon vetoing the bill to revise the laws relating to immigration, nat- uralization, and nationality, see Item 182. 5 Scott W. Lucas, Senator from Illinois, 1939- 1951. 417 [i66] June 12 Public Papers of the Presidents think he would be better informed on the subject than I am. [17.] Q. Mr. President, do you regard the office of keynoter of a national convention as a political office? the president. Oh, yes. [Laughter] Q. Well, is it a matter of honor for a five-star general to retire 6 the president. Now, I can't comment on those things. The Army is handling that. That's their baby, not mine. I am in politics. Q. But, sir, you are Commander in Chief, are you not? the president. Yes, I am Commander in Chief, but I am not exercising that authority in this case. [Laughter] Q. Why? the president. Because I don't want to. Q. It is more pleasant to play Commander in Chief at West Point and Annapolis? the president. Yes, it is — or Springfield, Missouri. [More laughter] Q. Well, Mr. President, will the decision of the Army authorities in this particular case be agreeable to you, sir? the president. The Army will handle the thing as it should be handled, I am sure. I am not interfering with them. Q. Mr. President, have they gotten any guidance from you on it? the president. I haven't discussed the matter with them. Q. You say you have not? the president. Have not. Q. Well, Mr. President, I gathered that the Army has announced that it will not do any- thing about it. Is that satisfactory to you? the president. The Army is handling it. Q. You did say the president. The Army is handling it. I say the Army is handling it. If I am not satisfied with what they do, I will call them down. [Laughter] 6 On June 10, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur was chosen by the Arrangements Com- mittee for the Republican National Convention as the keynote speaker of the 1952 convention. Q. You haven't had occasion to call them down? the president. No. [Laughter] You are having an awfully hard time get- ting to the bottom of this, aren't you? Q. Mr. President, what is the bottom of this? the president. Well, wait and see. Just wait and see. [More laughter] Q. Have you got anything else on your mind? [18.] Q. Mr. President — excuse me the president. May 7 wants to ask a question. Q. Mr. President, why did we accept the new Soviet Ambassador, General Zarubin,8 until we were sure that he is not the one of that same name mentioned in connection with the Katyn Forest massacre of Polish officers? the president. I don't know anything about it, May. It is customary, though, when a country asks the acceptance of an ambassador, he is accepted. There is never a question of any we send to them. It's a matter of courtesy. The country has a right to pick its own representatives. We don't pick them for them. Q. Yes sir — but it is up to us whether we accept or not, isn't it? the president. It is. But it is always customary to accept. I don't know of a sin- gle instance all the time I have been in Washington when there has been a dis- courteous rejection of an ambassador by any country. And I have been here about 19 years. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. That's all right. note: President Truman's three hundred and eighth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, June 12, 1952. 7 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. 8 Gen. Georgi N. Zarubin, who became the Soviet Ambassador to the United States on September 25, 1952. 418 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 13 [167] 167 Letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Cochrane on the Need for Increasing Social Security Benefits. June 13, 1952 My dear Mrs. Cochrane: I want you to know that I am in complete agreement with the sentiments you expressed in your letter to me. The present insurance payments of the social security law are just plain inadequate, and in all fairness to the many aged people who depend on these pay- ments for their very existence they must be raised as quickly as possible. I have been well aware of this problem. In all three of the annual messages which I sent to the Congress this past January, I stated that the insurance payments were in- adequate and that they should be raised. I pointed out that because of the rising wage level, the available revenues of the social security system would permit us to increase the primary benefit rates by an average of five dollars a month without any added cost to anyone. It seems only fair that this ad- justment in payments should be made for the benefit of those who have already made contributions to the system. The many peo- ple dependent on these payments as their sole source of subsistence are certainly entided to this additional consideration. On May nineteenth, the Administration bill which authorized this increase in monthly payments came up for debate in the House of Representatives. And our Repub- lican friends, who you and I know are op- posed to any legislation which works to the benefit of all our people, frantically searched for some device to defeat the measure. They saw the word "physician" in the text of the bill and on the advice of the American Medi- cal Association began screaming about "so- cialized medicine." They raised this bogey in connection with a provision that merely called for adequate protection against those who might falsely claim pension benefits on the basis of physical disabilities. This is the same kind of provision that we have had for years in the administration of our veterans insurance program. However, the scare words were enough to give an excuse to a solid bloc of Republicans, and they were able to defeat this bill which would provide the badly needed increases in social security payments. This doesn't mean our efforts to bring about this increase in benefits will stop. The House leadership has announced that this measure will definitely be brought up for a vote again next Monday. It is my hope that both the House and the Senate will give speedy approval to this highly justified bill now that the scare propaganda has been exposed for the sham it really is. I certainly hope that this bill will be quickly enacted into law. But I can assure you of this much. I am going to keep fight- ing for this proposal, just as I have always fought for other measures that are based upon our confidence in the ability of this country to so manage its affairs as to bring a decent life for all its citizens. I want to thank you for your very kind ex- pression of support for the things I have stood for. One of the most gratifying aspects of this difficult task of mine is receiving warm words of encouragement like yours. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mrs. Elizabeth Garlock Cochrane, 13 Rundle Park, Rochester, N.Y.] note: Mrs. Cochrane's letter to the President had been picked as representative of an older person's experience with old age and survivors insurance pay- ments under existing social security statutes. 419 [i68] June 13 Public Papers of the Presidents 168 Remarks to Members of the International Society of Christian Endeavor. ]une 13, 1952 WELL, we are mighty happy to have you here. It is a pleasure indeed to welcome such a fine-looking group of young people who have been studying citizenship, appar- ently. I hope you have had a chance to see every- thing you want to see in the city of Wash- ington, and that you will find some informa- tion attached to most of the places you visit that will do you good. The White House has been repaired. I think now it will stand up for at least 400 or 500 years — maybe longer than that. It was in a very dangerous condition when I had to tear it up. I appreciate the privilege of welcoming these two young people who have won these prizes, and if the One More Club will come down here in front, why we'll let you take a picture of them. note: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 169 Commencement Address at Howard University. June 13, 1952 Mr. President of the University, Mr. Ewing, distinguished guests: I am happy to be here today at this How- ard University commencement- Dr. Johnson has asked me to come to your commencement several times, and I am glad that I was able to do it before the end of my term of office. You who are graduating here today can always be proud of this university. This institution was founded in 1867 to give meaning to the principles of freedom, and to make them work. The founders of this university had a great vision. They knew that the slaves who had been set free needed a center of learning and higher education. They could foresee that many of the freedmen, if they were given a chance, would take their places among the most gifted and honored American citizens. And that is what has happened. The long list of distinguished Howard alumni proves that the wisdom of those who established this university was profoundly true. This university has been a true institution of higher learning which has helped to en- rich American life with the talents of a gifted people. For example, every soldier and every ci- vilian who receives the lifesaving gift of a transfusion from a blood bank can be grate- ful to this university. For this was the work of a distinguished Howard University pro- fessor, the late Dr. Charles Drew, that made possible the very first blood bank in the whole world. This is a practical illustration of the fact that talent and genius have no boundaries of race, or nationality, or creed. The United States needs the imagination, the energy, and the skills of every single one of its citi- zens. Howard University has recognized this from the beginning. It has accepted among its students, faculty, and trustees, representa- tives of every race, every creed, and every nationality. I wish I could say to you who are gradu- ating today that no opportunity to use your skills and knowledge would ever be denied you. I can say this: I know what it means not to have opportunity. I wasn't able to go to college at all. I had to stay at home and work on the family farm. You have been able to get the college education that is so important to everyone in this country. Some of us are denied opportunity for economic reasons. Others are denied opportunity be- 420 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 13 [169] cause of racial prejudice and discrimination. I want to see things worked out so that everyone who is capable of it receives a good education. I want to see everyone have a chance to put his education to good use, without unfair discrimination. Our country is founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. This means that they should be equal before the law. They should enjoy equal political rights. And they should have equal opportunities for education, employment, and decent liv- ing conditions. This is our belief, and we know it is right. We know it is morally right. And we have proved, by experience, that the more we practice that belief, the stronger, more vigorous, and happier our Nation becomes. That is why, 6 years ago, I created the President's Committee on Civil Rights. Nearly 5 years have passed since this Com- mittee made its report to me and to the whole American people. Today, I want to talk about some of the progress that has been made in those 5 years. Back in 1947 a good many people advised me not to raise this whole question of civil rights. They said it would only make things worse. But you can't cure a moral prob- lem, or a social problem, by ignoring it. It is no service to the country to turn away from the hard problems — to ignore injustice and human suffering. It is simply not the American way of doing things. Of course, there are always a lot of people whose motto is "Don't rock the boat." They are so afraid of rocking the boat, that they stop rowing. We can never get ahead that way. We can only drift with the current and final- ly go over the falls into oblivion with nothing accomplished. If something is wrong, the thing to do is to dig it out, find why it is wrong, and take sensible steps to put it right. We are all Americans together, and we can solve our hard problems together, including the prob- lem of race relations. The experience of the last 5 years demon- strates clearly that this is true. Now, in- stead of making things worse, our efforts in the field of civil rights have made things better — better in all aspects of our national life, and in all parts of our country. One of my southern friends said to me the other day, "The last 5 years are the best years in race relations this country has ever had." And the record proves it. Of course, the forward movement did not begin with the civil rights report. It was already in motion. It had been started in the 1930's, and had gained momentum dur- ing World War II. It looked for a while in 1946 and 1947 as if this progress would come to an end. You remember that, after the First World War, a wave of hate and violence and Ku Kluxism swept over the country. The problem we faced after the Second World War was this: Would we have to go through another ex- perience such as that, or could we hold fast to the gains that had been made? We did neither. Instead, we went for- ward. In many lines we have made gains for human freedom and equal opportunity that go far beyond anything accomplished during the war. And most of these gains have been permanent. They have been written quietly, but firmly, into our basic laws and our institutions. They will never be undone. These things have been accomplished without dividing our people. None of the talk about the country being torn apart has come to pass. These things were done be- cause people wanted them to be done. There has been a great working of the Amer- ican conscience. All over the land there has been a growing recognition that injustice must go, and that the way to equal oppor- tunity is better for us all. The civil rights report and the civil rights program give voice and expression to this great change of sentiment. They are the necessary instrument of progress. They are the trumpet blast outside the walls of Jericho — the crumbling walls of prejudice. And their work is not yet done. We still have a long way to go. 421 [169] June 13 Public Papers of the Presidents I should like to turn to the record now, and speak of the progress that has been made, and the tasks that still await us. First, in the field of political rights. In the last 5 years, two more States, Tennessee and South Carolina, have abolished the poll tax. Now there are only five poll tax States where there were eleven not so long ago. Opportunities for all our citizens to par- ticipate in our political life have increased steadily and rapidly. Court decisions have given protection to the right of equal par- ticipation in primary elections. These are notable advances. But there is still a lot to do. The poll tax and other discriminatory restrictions on voting should be removed in all the States. Second, let us take the field of education. I am glad to say that the principle of no discrimination — the principle that has always been followed here at Howard University — is the law of this country today in institutions of higher learning supported by public funds. Since the court decisions outlawing dis- crimination, more than a thousand Negro graduate and professional students have been accepted by 10 State universities that were closed to Negroes before. In the last 5 years legislation has been passed in 10 other States to abolish segregation or discrimination in schools and colleges. And the gloomy prophecies of the oppo- nents of civil rights have not been fulfilled. The universities have not been deserted. On the contrary, the faculties and students of the universities which are now open to all have welcomed and accepted the new students on their merits as individuals. This is only one instance of the way edu- cational opportunities have been opening up to Negroes in recent years. Since 1930 the enrollment of Negro college students has gone up eight times. Just stop and think what that means. For every 100 Negro col- lege students enrolled in 1930 there are 800 today. In the field of housing we have also been making progress. The congested, segre- gated areas of our great cities are breeding grounds of poverty, delinquency, and poor health. We have been trying to improve conditions in these areas. A major step was taken in this direction when the Supreme Court oudawed the enforcement of restric- tive covenants, which so often make bad housing conditions worse. We have begun to make progress in pub- lic housing also. In 1950, 177 public hous- ing projects were freely opened to families of all races and creeds. This is eight times as many as eight years ago. In the last few years nine States and eight cities have for- bidden discrimination or segregation in public housing. Another problem is that of protecting the right to safety and security of the person. There is no more important duty of the Government. We must protect our citizens from mob violence. And here again we have been moving forward. In the last 5 years two States have enacted antilynching laws, and four States and six cities have passed laws against wearing masks in public. The Civil Rights Section of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have used their powers to reinforce the State and local law enforcement agencies. The latest instance was in Illinois, where the State Governor stopped an outbreak of mob violence and the Federal authorities brought to justice the local law enforcement officers who abetted the mob. Now, this kind of action hasn't interfered with States rights or upset our system of government. Most of our citizens, wherever they live, have welcomed it. They want to be helped in suppressing lynching. And they would be helped by Federal legislation to safeguard the rights of the individuals when local law enforcement officers fail to do their duty. Such legislation ought to be on the books. Now I want to speak of something that gives me considerable pride. That is the progress in fair employment in the Federal service. If there is any place where fair employ- 422 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 13 [169] ment practices ought to prevail, it is the Federal Government. But experience shows that the departments and agencies of the Federal Government, no less than other orga- nizations, need to be helped and encouraged. Sometimes they need to be compelled. In 1948 I set up a Fair Employment Board in the Civil Service Commission. This Board has gone about its task quietly and effec- tively, and has done a great deal to insure the success of our nondiscrimination policy. The Federal Government makes billions of dollars worth of contracts every year to buy the things it needs. The money to pay for these contracts comes from all the peo- ple, without discrimination. It should be spent in the same way — without discrimina- tion. For over 10 years we have had a policy that every Government contract must contain a clause binding the contractor and his sub- contractors to practice nondiscrimination. But it is not always easy to be sure that such a clause is being followed in practice. To meet that situation, I set up a Committee on Government Contract Compliance last year. It is the duty of that Committee to work with the contracting agencies and to help them get better compliance with the rule of nondiscrimination. States and cities have also been going ahead to see that their fair employment prac- tices are followed in their jurisdictions. In the last few years n States and 20 munici- palities have adopted fair employment laws. Unions and employers in many places have voluntarily done away with the color bar. And the results have been peaceful and beneficial. None of the disorder that was so freely predicted has taken place. Some of the greatest progress of all has been made in the armed services. Service in the Armed Forces of our country is both a duty and a right of citizenship. Every man or woman who enters one of our services is certainly entided to equal treatment and equal opportunity. There has been a lot of talk about the need for segregation in the armed services. Some of our greatest generals have said that our forces had to have segregated units. But experience has proved that this is just plain nonsense. Quite some time ago, the Navy and the Air Force eliminated all racial distinctions, and the Army has been moving step by step to- ward this goal. For over 2 years every soldier coming into a training unit has been assigned on a basis of individual merit with- out racial discrimination. In the Far East, when General Ridgway took command, he ordered the progressive integration of all the troops in his command, and you have seen the results in the wonderful performance of our troops in Korea. Only recently a simi- lar order was issued by the European Com- mand at the direction of the Secretary of the Army. From Tokyo to Heidelberg these or- ders have gone out that will make our fight- ing forces a more perfect instrument of democratic defense. All these matters have been taken care of in a quiet and orderly way. The prophets of doom have been proved wrong. The civil rights program has not weakened our coun- try— it has made our country stronger. It has not made us less united — it has made us more united. The progress we have made so far is a source of deep satisfaction to us all. But that does not mean we have reached the goal or that we can stop working. Much re- mains to be done. Voluntary action can carry us a long way, and we must encourage it. State and local legislation is necessary, and we must have it. But let us remember this: The President's Committee on Civil Rights led the way. The debate over the civil rights program has stim- ulated much of the progress of the last 5 years. We still need the legislation I rec- ommended to the Congress in 1948. Only two of the recommendations I made in my civil rights program have been adopted so far. I shall continue, in office and out, to urge the Congress to adopt the remainder. I am not one of those who feel that we can leave these matters up to the States alone, or that we can rely solely on the ef- 423 [169] June 13 Public Papers of the Presidents forts of men of good will. Our Federal Government must live up to the ideals pro- fessed in the Declaration of Independence and the duties imposed upon it by the Con- stitution. The full force and power of the Federal Government must stand behind the protection of rights guaranteed in the Fed- eral Constitution. In this country of ours that we all love so much, we have built a way of life that has brought more satisfaction to more people than any other that has ever been devised. Our American way of life is the envy and admiration of people everywhere in the world. But this fact should not make us proud and arrogant. It places a heavy — a critical — responsibility upon us. The technical skills and knowledge that have been brought to such perfection in our country depend upon scientific discoveries that have come to us from all over the world. We have used this knowledge to build for ourselves a prosperous and a happy coun- try, but we know that we hold these skills in trust for all mankind. It is not our way to use the power that has come to us to op- press or victimize others. Our way is to use the power that has come to us to lift up the weak and the downtrodden. In many countries of the world, misery, poverty, and poor health are widespread. Some of these countries were formerly pos- sessions or colonies. Their people are now determined to improve their welfare and to preserve national independence. And we can help those new countries reach their goals. One of the means to do this is our point 4 program, through which we are helping to bring better health, more education, more and better food to millions of people. Graduates of this university are working on point 4 teams in many countries throughout the world. Negro professional workers from this and other universities are helping to cure sickness in Burma and Lebanon, to increase the farm output in Liberia, to im- prove education in Ethiopia and Iran. They are working in India, and Thailand, and Indochina. In these and other countries, Americans are working together, regardless of race, creed, or ancestry, to help the progress of mankind. This American Nation of ours is great because of its diversity — because it is a people drawn from many lands and many cultures, bound together by the ideals of human brotherhood. We must remember these things as we go forward in our efforts for world peace. We should realize that much of the trouble in this world today is the result of false ideas of racial superiority. In the past the conduct of the democratic nations has too often been marred by racial pride that has left its scars on the relations between the East and the West. Today, as we reach a fuller understanding of the brotherhood of man, we are laying aside these old prejudices. We are working with the new nations of Asia and Africa as equals. Anything less would be a betrayal of the democratic ideals we profess. Better than any other country, the United States can reach out, through our diversity of races and origins, and deal as man to man with the different peoples of the globe. In this way — in this spirit — we can help other peoples to build better lives for them- selves. And we can show that free peoples working together can change misery into happiness. There are those who have said that this is America's century, but we want it to be more than that. We want it to be human- ity's century. If all the people of the world, including the people of the Soviet Union, could know and appreciate this fact, lasting peace and universal justice would not be a dream. It would be a reality. With cour- age, with vision, and with God's help, we will yet make these ideals a reality around the world. note: The President spoke at 5:30 p.m. His open- ing words referred to Dr. Mordecai Johnson, Presi- dent of Howard University, and Oscar R. Ewing, Administrator of the Federal Security Agency. 424 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 14 [170] 170 Address in Groton, Conn., at the Keel Laying of the First Atomic Energy Submarine. ]une 14, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Governor Lodge, Mr. Secre- tary of the Navy, distinguished guests: I am very glad to be here today in Groton, Connecticut. You see, I got the right town this time. Somebody told me last week that this ceremony was going to be held in New London, over on the other side of the river. I referred to it in the speech I made Saturday out in Missouri. Very shortly thereafter I was set right in no uncertain terms. I am glad to see the people of Groton are proud of their home town. I know how they feel. I sometimes get pretty tired of Kansas City taking all the credit for things that happen in Independence, Missouri. I can understand why the people of Groton should be proud of what is happening here today. Today is Flag Day, the 175th anniversary of the adoption of the flag of the United States of America. Flag Day 175 years ago, the United Colonies — afterwards the United States — adopted the flag which flies over us today. In 1905, 47 years ago, I celebrated Flag Day by joining the National Guard as a private. I became a corporal, a sergeant, a captain, a major, a colonel — and finally the Commander in Chief of the whole works. As we celebrate this Flag Day, it marks one of the most significant developments of our time. We are assembled here to lay the keel of a Navy submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus. This ship will be something new in the world. She will be atomic powered. Her engines will not burn oil or coal. The heat in her boilers will be created by the same force that heats the sun — the energy released by atomic fission, the breaking apart of the basic matter of the whole universe. Think what this means. Just 7 years ago next month, down in New Mexico, our scientists released the energy of the atom in a gigantic explosion of in- credibly destructive force. The desert at Alamogordo was lighted for 70 miles, by a white light, brighter than the sun. That was a terrible moment, and it was a wonderful moment, too, for mankind. It was a terrible moment because it heralded a new weapon of war, a new weapon of destruction more nearly absolute than any- thing ever known to man before. It was a wonderful moment because it opened up for all men enormous possibilities of peace- ful progress, of industrial development and economic growth and better lives for human beings everywhere. In 1945 the whole world learned that the vast power of the atom could be put into a bomb. After the first shock and amaze- ment, all men asked themselves: What is this awful new force? Can it be used only to destroy men, or can it be harnessed to help them? For 7 years we have been working to find the answer. And now we have found it. This vessel is the forerunner of atomic- powered merchant ships and airplanes, of atomic powerplants producing electricity for factories, farms, and homes. The day that the propellers of this new submarine first bite into the water and drive her forward, will be the most momentous day in the field of atomic science since the first flash of light down in the desert 7 years ago. Then we knew we had a bomb for war. Now we will have a working powerplant for peace. The Nautilus will be able to move under the water at a speed of more than 20 knots. A few pounds of uranium will give her ample fuel to travel thousands of miles at top speed. She will be able to stay under- water indefinitely. Her atomic engine will permit her to be completely free of the earth's atmosphere. She will not even re- quire a breathing tube to the surface. The military significance of this vessel is tremendous. The engine of the Nautilus 425 [170] June 14 Public Papers of the Presidents will have as revolutionary an effect on the navies of the world as did the first ocean- going steamship 120 years ago. But the peaceful significance of the Nautilus is even more breathtaking. When this ship has been built and operated, con- trollable atomic power will have been demon- strated on a substantial scale. I wish I could convey to everyone what a tremendous and wonderful thing has been accomplished. It is amazing what our scien- tists and engineers have done. Think what was involved in creating the engine that will go into this submarine. New metals had to be produced. Wholly new processes for refining and using these metals had to be invented, tested, and put into production. All sorts of new machinery had to be designed and built to specifications more rigid than anything ever attempted by American industry before. The whole complicated mechanism re- quired to make atoms break apart had to be designed to fit into this vessel's hull. Safety devices had to be worked out to pro- tect the ship's crew from harmful radiation. Special controls had to be developed so that the speed and intensity of atomic fission can be regulated instantly by the flick of a switch. • And all this intricate mechanism had to be rugged enough to withstand combat shock from depth charges and from other attacks. The powerplant that will go into this submarine is not just being planned on paper. The Atomic Energy Commission and the Navy have actually gone out and built a submarine hull on dry land at Arco, Idaho. They are putting into it a full-size, working engine, complete in all respects — the same kind of engine that will be used in this ship. That engine on dry land is almost com- plete right now. Soon they will start it running and give it the most thorough tests. And, believe it or not, when they are through working with that model it will be perfectly possible to hitch it up and turn out electricity, like any other dryland powerplant. All this has been accomplished in an amazingly short period of time. When it was started 4 years ago, most people thought it would take at least 10 years, if it could be done at all. But one tough problem after another has been conquered in a fashion that seems almost miraculous, and the work has forged ahead. Thousands of people have participated in designing, developing, and building the powerplant of this ship. In the process they have learned what it takes to put atomic energy to work. And they have learned how to work together to create useful atomic power. Men from the Navy and the Atomic Energy Commission, from Government and industry, from management and labor — all have worked and learned together. Now the men and management of the Electric Boat Division are joining the team to carry forward this remarkable project. In view of the long record of good relations between your union and your company, I know you men and women will do your full part in leading us on into the age of atomic power. An engine to use in a ship underwater is a very difficult kind of engine to design and make. But having done this difficult job, our scientists and engineers should not have too much trouble finding ways to build simpler and cheaper powerplants in the future. Now I don't want to be misunderstood. Widespread use of atomic power is still years away. But with this vessel we are making a giant stride ahead. It is a paradox that most of our progress toward the peaceful application of atomic energy has come under the pressure of mili- tary necessity. We tackled the secret of the atom to build a bomb that could secure our military victory in World War II. We are building the first atomic engine to power this warship, so she may help secure the seas against the danger of aggression. We have no love for war. I hope and pray with all my heart that the day will never come again when we have to use the 426 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 14 [170] atomic bomb. I pray that this ship, this first atomic submarine, will never have an enemy to fight. I hope she will be tied up someday as an historic relic of a threat of war long passed. I know that all Americans will join me in this. For we are a peaceful people, not a warlike people. We want peace and we work hard for peace. This is a great day for us, a day to celebrate — not because we are starting a new ship for war, but because we are making a great advance in the use of atomic energy for peace. We want atomic power to be a boon to all men every- where, not an instrument for their destruc- tion. Today, we stand on the threshold of a new age of power. In 10 short years we have bridged the great gap between the first dis- covery of a new source of power and its peaceful use. Never before in history has mankind made such rapid strides. Between the first application of steam by Hero of Alexandria and the steam engine of James Watt lay almost 2,000 years. Between Franklin's experiments with electricity and the first successful incandescent lamp there intervened almost a century and a half. No man can foresee what breathtaking de- velopments in atomic energy will take place in the next 10 years. The powerplant of the Nautilus may soon seem to us as crude and inefficient as the steamboat of Robert Fulton. If we could devote a full share of our energies to the peaceful development of the atom, it should soon be possible to bring this new source of power into daily use. Self- contained powerplants, able to run almost in- definitely without refueling, and capable of being moved from place to place, would be within reach of our industry, our transporta- tion systems, our cities, and our farms. Such a possibility would revolutionize the tech- nological basis of our civilization. It could provide the answer to the crying need for sources of power in the underdeveloped areas of the world. It could mean industrial de- velopment for areas now held back because they have no supply of coal, or oil, or water- power. It could set man free from servitude to geography and climate. And such a development would bring other, unforeseeable benefits along with it. The use of radioactive materials in the de- tection and treatment of disease has already shown startling results. Such materials have also been used in remarkable research experiments in the development of foods and fibers. All these advances are still in the primitive stages of exploration. Nobody knows what marvels lie ahead of us. We stand on the threshold of a new age. But the question is: When shall we be al- lowed to enter it? These great developments depend on the creation of a free and peaceful world. So long as there is the threat of conquest and war, we must devote the greater part of our scientific resources and of our budget to defense. So long as there is a danger from atomic weapons, we must apply the greater part of our fissionable materials to atomic defenses. Before we can enter the atomic age, we must achieve peace. That is our goal. That is what we are working for. That is why we have under- taken the great projects of collective defense, in the East and in the West. By building our defenses we are trying not only to make war impossible, but to turn the tide toward peace through agreement. Even as we build these defenses, we are seeking to find some way to reach peaceful settlement of the world's difference. We have offered a plan in the United Nations for effective international control over atomic energy and for oudawing atomic weapons. We want an end to atomic armaments — we want an end to every kind of armament — and we have never ceased to hope that the Soviet rulers might come to entertain the same desire and might join us in constructive measures for disarmament. But this they have not done. They have shown no willingness to work out honest, fair solutions for the problems of the world. Instead, they have sought to sow disruption and distrust among free countries; they have 427 [170] June 14 Public Papers of the Presidents used threats and riots, bloodshed and out- right aggression, in their attempt to expand their empire. They have left us no choice except to look to our own defenses. They have made us understand that only great strength to offset their own can keep the peace. That is why the free countries of the world have banded together for greater strength. We are build- ing strength for security. And this ship Nautilus is a part of that great effort. She is designed to patrol the seas and thus protect our land. She is an answer to the threat of aggression in the world. Now, I want to turn to a phase of this matter that cannot be ignored. That is the fact that atomic developments cost money — indeed, they are very expensive. Only a few weeks ago I had to ask the Congress for an additional sum of more than $3 billion for expanding our atomic energy work. All na- tional security programs are expensive and we might as well face up to it. I think efforts are being made to sell the American people on the idea that there is some cutrate, bargain-counter route to na- tional security, and that route is a very dan- gerous one. The people of this country have faith and courage and patriotism enough to do what is required for our national survival. They are willing to do what is necessary even though the way may be long and hard. The difficulty is that the American people are getting all kinds of foolish advice from people who know better. This is a political year and politics does funny things to people who are seeking office — and I know, from Experience. Now the air is filled with promises to strengthen national security and to cut taxes all at the same time. I even heard the other day that somebody was talk- ing about a $40 billion tax cut. That would leave us with only about half enough money to support our Armed Forces even if we didn't spend a dollar for anything else. This passion for economy regardless of the consequences is raging in the Congress. That is where the greatest danger lies, be- cause the Congress can wreck our chances for world peace if it takes the wrong kind of action. Very fortunately, there are many men in the Congress who recognize the serious danger that confronts our country and who are not yielding to political pres- sures for false economy. I hope and believe that there are enough of these men so that we will get through this election year session with our national defense reasonably intact. Two of the best of them, I want to say to you, are your Senators from Connecticut. Brien McMahon has done so much to guide the development and control of atomic energy, that people sometimes lose sight of the other good work he does. But I want you to know that he is doing much — all across the board — to keep the United States on the right road, and is doing as much as any man in the Senate in that direction. Then there is Bill Benton. Bill is always on the right side of every tough fight that comes along. And the thing I admire about him most is his courage. He has stepped right up and tagged Joe McCarthy for what he is, when a lot of other people were running for cover — or were even doing a little sordid coattail riding. I want to thank the people of Connecticut for sending men like this to the Senate. I hope you will keep it up. We must have men in office who have the courage and the wisdom to choose the right course whether it is popular or not. We may have to live in a half-peace, half- war condition for a long time to come. We must lay our plans accordingly. If we are to maintain peace, we must be prepared to defeat aggression. And we must be pre- pared to make the long-term investment in national security that this requires. But clearly this does not mean that we should pay attention only to military mat- ters. Far from it. What we must do in- stead— what we are doing — is to make use of every opportunity we have to advance the arts of peace and respond to human needs. That is why this ceremony here today holds great hope for the future. We are 428 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 14 [171] here, in a true sense, pioneering to bring the world new advances. We are, at one and the same time, fortifying the cause of free men everywhere against aggression and taking a long stride toward the day when man can reap the material benefits of the atom. But think how much more we could do if we were able to devote all our atomic knowl- edge to peaceful purposes. If the attitude of the Kremlin should change, if the Soviet Union would cooperate in building a better world instead of standing in the way of all progress, think what vistas would open up. Think what could be done for the better- ment of mankind with only a fraction of the money now going into military strength. No wonder men look with bewilderment and dismay at the bitter stream of lies and threats that come from Moscow. No won- der millions of men, on both sides of the iron curtain, look to the Kremlin and ask, "When will they let us have peace?" For the people of the world know that men have within their reach today the means of a better life than they have ever had be- fore. With the tools of modern science — of which the most marvelous can be this new thing, atomic energy — and with the ancient moral truths of religion and philos- ophy, mankind can build a world in which poverty, hunger, and war are banished once and for all. This is the vision we should keep before us as we strive on toward peace, justice, and freedom for all men. note: The President spoke at 12 noon at the ship- yard of the Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corporation, Groton, Conn. His opening words referred to Gordon E. Dean, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Governor John Davis Lodge of Connecticut, and Dan A. Kimball, Sec- retary of the Navy. In the course of his remarks he referred to Senator Brien McMahon, Chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy, and Senator William Benton, both of Con- necticut. For the President's June 7 speech in Missouri, in which he referred to the keel -laying ceremony, see Item 158. 171 Remarks at a Luncheon at the Officers' Club, U.S. Submarine Base, New London, Connecticut. ]une 14, 1952 Mr. Hop\ins, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Secretary: I certainly do appreciate the model very much. I hope you noticed the introduction that Mr. Hopkins used. He set me 50 years ahead of my time! You know, he made the statement that he was sitting next to a great President. A Pres- ident is never great until he is 50 years dead. It's like a statesman, when a man is alive he's a politician — and that's what I am — and when he's dead he's a statesman. Now it will be 50 years before I can be a great Presi- dent or a statesman. But Mr. Robinson here comes down to modern times and gives me the advance copy of the great submarine which we started today. And I am told by my naval aide that it was made at the Portsmouth Navy Yard. Thank you very much for the most pleasant of days. I have enjoyed it im- mensely— had a good time. And I think we have started something that will, in the long run — maybe 50 years from now — make history. I am most happy to be a part of the cere- mony today. I have been most vitally in- terested in this wonderful discovery. It is terrible and wonderful, both. And as the people who have been connected with it will tell you, while I am less than nothing as an educator and scientist, I think I know a good thing when I see it. I was raised on a Missouri farm and had to learn to judge mules, and you had to know a good one when you saw him or he would get the best of you. But I am sure from this point on we will 429 [171] June 14 Public Papers of the Presidents make history, and we are making it all the time. But this will be what you might call a milestone today in the historical setup of the discovery of the breaking of the atom and using it for energy for peaceful purposes. I am glad to be a part of it, and I hope you are a good prophet. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 2:32 p.m. His open- ing words referred to John Jay Hopkins, President, and O. P. Robinson, Senior Vice President and Gen- eral Manager, General Dynamics Corporation, and Dan A. Kimball, Secretary of the Navy. The officers of the General Dynamics Corporation presented the President with a model of the first nuclear powered submarine, the U.S.S. Nautilus. See also Item 170. 172 Remarks to Members of "Task Force Smith; ]une 1 6, 1952 IT IS quite an admission for an artilleryman to make, but we couldn't fight a war without the infantry, I'm afraid. I congratulate you men on the job you did in that original task force. Had it not been for the fact that these two divisions to which you belong had caused the Communists to hesitate, we possibly would not have been able to hold our position with the Korean Republic. I hope you enjoy your stay here in Wash- ington and that you will go back to your outfits and not tell them too many bad things about what you saw here in this Cap- ital City of the world. Any courtesies that we can extend to you, we will be glad to extend. We will make arrangements so that you can take a look at the refurbished White House, and I think you'll like it, but I wouldn't advise any of you to have the ambition to move in. note: The President spoke at 3:10 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The group included 16 members of the 1st Battalion, 21st Regiment, 24th Infantry Division, the first American unit to see combat in Korea in July 1950. The battalion movement to Korea, called "Task Force Smith," was named for its commander, Lt. Col. Charles B. Smith, who also headed the group that met with the President. 173 Remarks Upon Receiving a Medal Presented by Students From William Chrisman High School, Independence, Missouri. ]une 17, 1952 WELL, I appreciate that most highly. I don't know of any other place I would rather receive it from than from Independence High School — William Chrisman High School it is now— from which I graduated in 1901, a long time ago. I shall treasure this and put it with my mementoes. If ever I get in a contest on oratory, I shall wear it. I hope you are successful in your contin- uation of your contest, and that I may have the privilege of shaking hands with one of you as a national winner. I hope, when you go back to my home- town, you will remember me to my friends out there, and I shall always consider Inde- pendence and Jackson County my home. And sometime after the 20th of January next, I expect to be back. note: The President spoke at 11:35 a.m. at the White House. David Freeman, president of the student body and one of four first place winners from the high school in the speech contests in Missouri, presented President Truman with a gold medal on behalf of the school's chapter of the National Forensic League. The award carried with it a life membership in the 430 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 18 [174] League. The other three winners of the speech contests were Delores Tandy, Celia Fry, and Douglas Hagan. They were accompanied to the White House by Gregory Lefever, assistant principal, and -Margaret Meredith, speech instructor. The students were en route to Boston to compete in the national tournament, to be held at Boston University, June 23-29. The President became an honorary member of the Independence chapter of the National Forensic League in 1950. 174 Remarks to Members of the Eighth Annual Institute on the Preservation and Administration of Archives. June 18, 1952 I AM very glad to have you visit the White House. I am very much interested in what you are doing. In fact, I am highly inter- ested in it because the papers of some of our Presidents of the United States, and of the Cabinet officers and of some of our depart- ments, have been scattered from one end of the country to the other. We finally did establish an Archives Building here, which works in cooperation with the Library of Congress, and I think we are on the way now to the proper preser- vation of the official papers of the Govern- ment of the United States. And your organization has been very help- ful in giving us the right sort of a start on that thing. I am personally interested be- cause I want to see the state papers of Presi- dent Roosevelt and myself properly cared for. Princeton has had some experience in trying to assemble the official papers of Thomas Jefferson. They had to go from one end of the country to the other in order to get the fundamental documents that formed the policies of his administration. That shouldn't have to be done. They ought to be accessible in one place — the Presi- dent's papers should be accessible where the scholars and archivists can get to them with- out difficulty. I hope we will have that in the future. I am glad you are continuing your school. I hope you will continue to inform the people in Government on what they ought to do for the preservation of state papers. Just the other day, Mr. Leslie Biffie, in clean- ing out an old dust-covered bookcase in the Senate Library, found some original docu- ments signed by Washington and Jefferson and Polk, Madison, and Monroe. There was one there where Washington in his own handwriting was calling a special session of the United States Senate, he wanted to ad- dress a special session of the United States Senate. It's in the original form, and should never have been thrown around as that paper was. There's a stack of those papers that high, and I am going to send them to the Library of Congress through Mr. Biffie and have them properly preserved. That is what in the past has happened to the official papers of Presidents of the United States, and it should not happen. You can help prevent it from happening. note: The President spoke at 12:50 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The Institute, held in Washington, June 16-July 11, was under the direction of the American University in coopera- tion with the Library of Congress, the National Archives and Records Service, and the Maryland Hall of Records. 431 [175] June 19 Public Papers of the Presidents 175 The President's News Conference of ]une 19, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no particular announcements to make, but I will try to answer questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would give us your reaction to the Senate action on your reorganization plans yester- day? * the president. The reorganization plans were right and should have been passed — should have been allowed to stand, let's put it that way. [2.] Q. Mr. President, do you think any Democratic President can reduce taxes 15 percent? the president. No, sir, I do not. If they could have been reduced that much, I would have reduced them. The facts in the case are they ought to be increased to meet the deficit. And I am not running for office. [Laughter] Q. What? the president. I'm not running for office, I can tell you the facts. [3.] Q. Mr. President, you said vou want the Democratic Party to have an open con- vention— choice the president. That's correct. Q. would you consider that your making your personal preference known be- fore Chicago would in any way limit its action? the president. I wouldn't think so. As a delegate to the Chicago convention I have a right to a preference. Q. Do you intend the president. I do not intend to express anything about it until the convention meets, and probably not until the President is nominated. That's my business, however, and I will do as I please on it. 1 Reorganization Plans 2, 3, and 4 of 1952 were disapproved by the Senate on June 18. See Items 84-87. [4.] Q. Can you tell us anything, Mr. President, regarding Mr. Letourneau's 2 visit here on Indochina? the president. Say that again? Q. Can you tell us anything regarding Mr. Letourneau's visit here on the Indo- chinese problem? the president. He came in and paid his respects to the President of the United States, and we discussed Indochina and the situa- tion, and that's all there was to it. I have no comment to make on it. [5.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Mr. Harriman that this District primary vote is a clear-cut victory for the New Deal- Fair Deal?3 the president. Couldn't be anything else. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify a pre- vious answer, you have said you don't think any Democratic President could cut taxes 15 percent. Do you think any Republican President could? the president. No, I do not, unless he wants to put the country further in the hole than it is. [7.] Q. Mr. President, this is in reference to the Senate action on recommitting the St. Lawrence Seaway bill yesterday. During the debate, the administration Senators seemed to imply that a decision had been made to let New York State go ahead and develop the power with the Province of Ontario. In your letter to Senator Russell, which was released yesterday,4 you said that 2 Jean Letourneau, Minister of the Associated States in the French Government. 3 On June 18, Averell Harriman defeated Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee in the District of Columbia primary in the contest for the Democratic Presidential nomination. *The text of the President's letter, dated June 17, follows: Dear Dic\: I am sending you this memorandum hoping that 432 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 19 [175] no doubt some future administration will allow New York and Quebec — I presume you meant Ontario the president. That is a mistake on my part. I dictated that letter and I said Quebec. It should have been Ontario. That matter about which you speak is a matter for the Federal Power Commission to pass on, and the matter doesn't come to me until the Power Commission acts on it. Q. Mr. President, do you feel that in view of this action — will you just lend your sup- port now and tell Canada to go ahead and build the seaway? the president. I have made that state- you can do something to help the St. Lawrence seaway. It will be one of the worst economic mistakes the country has ever made to allow that great project to go by default. If Canada constructs the waterway then no doubt some future adminis- tration will allow New York and Quebec to obtain all of the power. This is one of the worst things that could happen in the northeast section of the country. I have had in mind a northeast power pool, a southeast power pool, which is almost completed, a southwest power pool and, of course, we have a great one in the northwest and one developing in the middle of the country, so that eventually we will have a power network that will give the country a balanced program fair to every section. How any midwest or lake bordering State or New England could not see the necessity for this won- derful project is more than I can understand. If Canada builds the waterway, and they expect to build it, we will pay a toll on every ton of steel that comes from the iron deposits in Labrador. It has become necessary for us to import nearly all our iron from Labrador, Liberia, and Venezuela. This waterway would prevent our steel mills in the midwest from moving to the east coast. That situa- tion happened to the textile mills of New England and I don't want to see it happen in the case of the midwest steel mills. Of course, the southern steel mills will be taken care of by the Venezuela ore deposits and are not in any danger from lack of future ores. I hope you will consider this situation carefully. I think the best showing possible was made before the committee when the project was being considered. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Hon. Richard B. Russell, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.] ment to the Prime Minister of Canada when he came to see me on the subject. Of course we will support him in building the seaway. [8.] Q. Mr. President, have you tutored Averell Harriman in practical politics at all? the president. I beg your pardon? Q. Have you tutored Averell Harriman in practical politics? the president. I rather think he needs no tutoring. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, several times re- cently, beginning with your warning of the prospect of new "Koreas," and then the in- crease in our antiaircraft precautions in this country, and then yesterday one of your callers said you thought the international situation was very serious, I wonder if this reflects any new note of urgency in the inter- national situation? the president. The note of urgency has been on all the time. That's the reason we call this an emergency. We are going through a situation in an endeavor to prevent a third world war — all-out, worldwide — and every effort that we have made has been to prevent that from taking place. We have made great progress in preventing it, and we can't let down now. [10.] Q. Mr. President, did you read the report of the Senate subcommittee — Lyndon Johnson's report on aircraft? 5 the president. Yes, I read it. Q. What were your reactions to it? the president. My reaction was that the action of the President of the United States was the correct one. I have no further comment to make on it. [11.] Q. Mr. President, does the Army's decision on allowing General MacArthur to keynote the Republican Convention 6 meet with your approval ? the president. The Army is in charge. [Laughter] 5 The findings of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, based on the results of investigations by the Preparedness Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, are printed in the Congressional Record (vol. 98, p. 8609). 6 See Item 166 [17]. 433 [175] June 19 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Do you approve it? the president. The Army is in charge. [More laughter] [12.] Q. Well, if nobody else will ask about the Taft-Hartley, I will. the president. What is it you want to ask, May? 7 Q. I wanted to ask if you knew that Sen- ator Wayne Morse thinks now that you should use Taft-Hartley, and whether your own opinion on it is that you should or will use it soon? the president. The matter is under con- sideration, May. No decision has been reached. Q. Are you waiting for House action today? the president. Not necessarily. The matter has been under consideration right along without reference to what the House or Senate does, because they can't tell me what to do. Taft-Hartley is a permissive piece of legislation to be used in peacetime. Q. Excuse me, sir, the reason I brought up Wayne Morse was that I knew he had come to see you last week, and I thought per- haps you had also discussed that. the president. We discussed everything that is before the Government today, includ- ing that. Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can tell us on how serious the effects of the steel strike are becoming? the president. It is becoming very serious. If you will read the morning papers, you will find that the Ford Motor Company has cut down, and Chrysler expects to cut down. It will affect every industry in the United States if it continues. If that is not an emer- gency I never heard of one. Q. Mr. President, is it starting to affect defense production seriously? the president. Yes, of course it is. Q. I couldn't hear what you said about every industry in the United States 7 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. the president. Every industry in the United States will be affected by the steeL strike if it continues. It is a fundamental basic metal that is absolutely necessary to carry on our economy. I tried to make that perfectly plain time and again. Maybe I didn't. Q. Did I understand you to say that you wouldn't be governed by the House or Senate action on that? the president. No, they can't tell the Executive what to do. They pass laws, and if I approve them I try to carry them out. I didn't approve that one, by the way. Q. Mr. President, is there a possibility that you may ask the union representatives and the companies to come to the White House again? 8 the president. I have not had it under consideration at the present time. They are endeavoring now to get the defense produc- tion into operation. They have been holding conference after conference on that subject- I hope they will succeed. [13.] Q. Mr. President, you commented that Averell Harriman's victory was ob~ viously a victory for an all-out Fair Deal- New Deal campaign in the district. Do you. feel that any of the other announced Demo- cratic candidates are campaigning on as; much a Fair Deal-New Deal program? the president. I can't speak for any can- didate. I can speak only for myself. Q. No sir — I meant, as you look at them, as an observer, do you regard their campaigns as also New Deal the president. I have no comment to- make on that subject. [14.] Q. Mr. President, after all those- speeches he has made, do you still think. General Eisenhower is a nice guy? the president. Yes, of course I do. Q. You haven't changed the president. I am very fond of Gen- eral Eisenhower, and he is entided to his" 8 For information on the previous meeting with* industry and labor leaders, see Items 116, 118. 434 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 19 [175] political views. It's all right with me. This is a free country. But I still like him as well as I ever did. Q. Do you wish him luck? the president. I can't say that — [laugh- ter] — he is not running in the Democratic campaign. [15.] Q. Mr. President, did your How- ard University speech 9 reflect your views as to what you think the civil rights plank in the Democratic platform should be? the president. Yes, and if you will read the message of 1948,10 you will find just exacdy what it ought to be. There hasn't been any change on my part. [16.] Q. Mr. President, do you regard the Taft-Hardey Act as purely a permissive one which is within your discretion to use or not? the president. That is correct. Q. And you don't think any action by Congress one way or the other can force you to use that the president. No, no Q. if you don't want to? the president. 1 do not. I am pretty hard to force when I don't want to do any- thing, and I am pretty hard to hold back when I do want to do it. Q. Mr. President, could I ask this, be- cause I mean it — [laughter] — really, sir, I want to know the president. Well, I will be glad [Laughter] Q. If steel production THE PRESIDENT. Go On. Q. If steel production is so absolutely es- sential, why do you not take the 80 days the Taft-Hartley would give you, while Con- gress thinks about legislation and you think whatever else could be done? the president. We used 99 days in the same manner, and Congress was thinking of 9 See Item 169. 10 For the President's special message to Congress on civil rights, dated February 2, 1948, see 1948 volume, this series, Item 20. the situation and had been fully informed on it time after time. The 80 days would just prolong the agony — wouldn't help matters one bit. Q. You would get production for 80 days. the president. How do you know that? You don't know that. Q. Are you implying that they might not obey an injunction? the president. Sure I am. Q. Would they obey seizure then, if they won't obey the other? the president. Yes. Yes, they would. They did. Q. Mr. President, is there any law still available to you that would permit seizure of the steel plants to permit production to go on? the president. My attitude on that is just the same, but the court ruled otherwise, and I agreed to abide by the court ruling, which I am doing. Q. Mr. President, do you find any incon- sistency in General Eisenhower's support of the Taft-Hartley Act and his statement that he would like to sit down with Walter Reuther and discuss labor matters, because he liked the ideas of Reuther that he had read ? the president. Well, now, that is a politi- cal matter between General Eisenhower and the labor people, and I have no idea of in- terfering with what the General wants to do. He is — as I told you time and again — he is a free agent and a friend of mine. [17.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report circulating — I will have to say it is just a report; we have not been able to verify this — that there is a gentleman in Texas by the name of Mr. Maury Maverick — whom I believe you know, sir — and he has been re- portedly telling friends that he has a letter from you saying that his delegation — the loyalist delegation — will be seated in Chi- cago, and not the delegation headed by Gov- ernor Shivers? the president. That's a rumor, I under- 435 [175] JUI*e 19 Public Papers of the Presidents stand you to say. I saw you promoted Maury to a general. He was a Congressman and never was a general. Q. Did I say general? the president. Maury Maverick. Q. A gentleman, sir. the president. I thought you said gen- eral— so many generals flying back and forth here. [Laughter] Q. And did you say it was the president. You said it for what it was — a rumor. Q. That is correct, sir. You didn't say the president. I said it was a rumor. Q. But you did not the president. That's what you said. [Laughter] You said it was a rumor, and I have no further comment to make on it. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. It's all right. note: President Truman's three hundred and ninth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 19, 1952. 176 Remarks to the Delegates to the 22d National 4-H Club Camp. June 19, 1952 THIS HAS become an annual affair, and one to which I look forward. There is only one thing I overlooked this morning. I forgot to put on my 4-H button, for which I apologize. I think you young people, as I told you last year, are making a very great contribution to the welfare of — and the citizenship of — this great Republic of ours. And you are also making a contribution to the good understanding between coun- tries when you have young people from other parts of the world to come and co- operate with you, and learn what you are doing, so they can do the same thing for their countries back home. I hope you enjoy your visit in Washington, and that you will come back again next year. In all probability I won't be here to meet you, but I understand exactly what you are trying to do, and I know the next President will be just as happy to receive you as I have been as long as I have been here. note: The President spoke at 11:50 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 177 Letter to the Attorney General on the Sale of the SS United States. ]une 20, 1952 My dear Mr. Attorney General: You are perhaps aware of the problems surrounding the sale by the Government of the superliner, the SS United States, to the United States Lines Company. As you may know, the amount of subsidy involved in the contract sales price for the ship has been seriously challenged as being excessive. Throughout my Administration, I have consistendy supported actions necessary to assure the maintenance of a strong and healthy American flag merchant fleet. I am firmly convinced of the importance of such a fleet for reasons of national defense and our international commerce. The SS United States admirably serves both of these pur- poses. I feel, therefore, that this ship will represent an important addition to our mer- chant fleet. It was for that reason I sup- ported its construction in my budget recom- mendations to the Congress. However, the clearly desirable objective of promoting an adequate merchant marine cannot be used to condone the allowance of excessive sub- sidies to individual ship operators. Under the terms of the original contract, 436 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 20 [177] which was executed in April 1949, the United States Lines Company would obtain this vessel at a price of about $28 million, compared with the total cost to the Gov- ernment of almost $78 million. The differ- ence between these amounts would be borne by the Government in the form of construc- tion subsidy and national defense allowances. In July 1949, the Comptroller General is- sued a special report to the Congress strongly criticizing the terms of this and similar con- tracts. As a result of this report, a subcom- mittee of the House Committee on Expendi- tures in the Executive Departments, under the chairmanship of Mr. Porter Hardy, made an independent investigation. The find- ings of this subcommittee, as adopted by the whole Committee, largely substantiated the report of the Comptroller General and give reason to believe that the contract reflects certain errors in calculation, together with possible misconstructions of law, with the result that the operator may have been offered an excessive subsidy allowance. This view would appear to be borne out by the recent redetermination by the Federal Maritime Board of sales prices under a sim- ilar contract, also investigated by the Hardy subcommittee, covering two vessels pur- chased by the American Export Lines. In that redetermination, the Federal Maritime Board found that a subsidy allowed in the original contract was excessive. The House Committee Report stated, among other things, that "In the light of the findings and conclusions of this report, it is recommended that the contracts executed or to be executed with the operators in each of the three cases involved be reviewed and all possible action taken to prevent excessive expenditures of Government funds." In November 1949 and again in March 1950, I requested that, as recommended by the Hardy subcommittee, the former Mari- time Commission review the legal and sub- stantive aspects of this contract, with a view toward obtaining whatever adjustments might be necessary to protect the financial interests of the Government. I asked that this review include an appraisal of the basic data, assumptions, and calculations under- lying the contract. However, I have re- ceived no information, from a review or from any other source, which answers the charges as to the substantive deficiencies in the contract from the Government's point of view. I recently requested that representatives of the United States Lines be invited to dis- cuss with the Government possible adjust- ments in the contract. I proposed that these discussions be without prejudice to any rights either party might have under the contract and that they be on a purely ex- ploratory basis. Despite the purely tenta- tive character of the proposed discussions, the company on two occasions refused to accept this invitation. I deplore this atti- tude on the part of the company. The Secretary of Commerce has informed me that, our offer of exploratory discussions having been rejected, he felt the Govern- ment had no alternative but to deliver the superliner to the company on the scheduled delivery date under the terms of the original contract. In view of the doubt as to the correctness of the subsidy allowance cited above, it would seem advisable to consider the steps that should now be taken to protect the Govern- ment's rightful interests. Accordingly, I re- quest that you determine what legal action should be taken by the Government. I would like for you to consult freely with the Secretary of Commerce, the Maritime Board, and the Comptroller General. The Government is not helpless in this matter. Viewing the situation in its broad- est aspects, I am impressed by the fact that the company has been operating for many years under the benefits of construction subsidies, operating subsidies, tax benefits, and other privileges accorded by the Mer- chant Marine Act. In view of the generous assistance provided by the Government, it is difficult to believe that the Government would lack a basis for obtaining an adjust- ment that would compensate fairly for any 437 55-672^66 [177] June 20 Public Papers of the Presidents excessive subsidy that may have been in- volved in the contract in this case. In the event you should find it impossible to take corrective action under existing law, please consider the kind of new legislation that could be recommended for this purpose. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable James P. McGranery, The Attorney General, Washington, D.C.] note: On December 11, the White House released the text of a letter to the President from the At- torney General, in which he stated that, under the President's direction, the sum of $10,000,000 was being withheld from operating subsidies accruing to the United States Lines Company. He also stated that a thorough review of the circumstances of the sale of the SS United States to the Company had convinced him that the contract was voidable at the election of the United States. Since the Company would not agree to discuss the settlement of the dispute on a reasonable basis, Mr. McGranery sug- gested that "recovery can be effected by way of set- off against any moneys now due to the United States Lines — including the ten million dollars with- held from operating subsidies — and any money thereafter due said Company, if the sum presently available is insufficient." Mr. McGranery further stated that the Comptroller General, upon receiving the conclusions of the study, would proceed to re- cover the amount due. The text of the Comptroller General's report to Congress and the report of the Government Oper- ations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, entitled "Inquiry into the Operations of the Maritime Com- mission With Particular Reference to Allowances for National Defense Features and Construction-Differ- ential Subsidies Under Title V of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as Amended, Based on Special Report of the Comptroller General" is printed in House Report 1423 (81st Cong., 1st sess.). 178 Letter to Senator Russell on the Military Construction Bill. ]une 23, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: I have heard reports to the effect that the Senate Armed Services Committee is con- sidering a fifty percent cut in H.R. 8120, the military construction bill which the House of Representatives passed a short time ago. I do not know whether these reports are well founded, but they have disturbed me very greatly and I wish very earnestly to ask the Committee to guard against such a dan- gerous course. We urgently need the air bases and depots and other installations that are covered by the House bill. They are absolutely vital to our whole defense plan. When this pro- gram was submitted to the Congress, it had already been pared down to the minimum that safety would allow. The House Armed Services Committee considered the program with care and found that the items in the House Bill were thoroughly justified. It would be a terrible disaster to lose half these facilities at a stroke. We just can't afford to let it happen. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman, Com- mittee on Armed Services, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.] note: On July 14 the President signed H.R. 8120, a bill to authorize certain construction at military and naval installations, and for other purposes (66 Stat. 606). The administration had requested $3,027,752,000 for military and naval construction during fiscal year 1953, and the act authorized $2,398,282,800. 179 Letter in Response to Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. June 23, 1952 Dear Mr. Paley: Your Commission's report is a landmark in its field. I do not believe there has ever been attempted before such a broad and far- sighted appraisal of the material needs and resources of the United States in relation to 438 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 24 [180] the needs and resources of the whole free world. Nor, in my judgment, has the con- clusion ever been so forcefully stated and documented that international cooperation in resource development and international trade in raw materials is imperative to world peace and prosperity. Your report likewise makes clear exactly where and how we need to conserve and strengthen our natural resources here at home, and to maintain our dynamic progress in science and technology. Trie conviction you have expressed that this Nation, despite its serious materials problem, can continue to raise its living standards and strengthen its security in partnership with other freedom loving nations should be heartening to people everywhere. I have not yet had an opportunity to study in detail each of your specific recommenda- tions but I am sure they merit careful con- sideration, not only by the Congress and the executive branch of the Federal Government, but by state governments, the general public and especially by farm, labor, industry and other private groups most closely related to the problem. It is my hope that your report will stimulate further study and discussion, both in and out of Government, of all aspects of this vital problem. I extend to your Commission and its staff my thanks and congratulations for the public service you have rendered. Your study, I feel sure, will be appreciated not only in our own country but by people of other nations with which the United States is cooperating toward the preservation of freedom and peace, and the enrichment of human life. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable William S. Paley, Chairman, President's Materials Policy Commission, Washington, D.C.] note: The Commission's report was in five volumes: Volume I, "Foundations for Growth and Security" (184 pp.), Volume II, "The Outlook for Key Com- modities" (210 pp.)> Volume III, "The Outlook for Energy Sources" (43 pp.), Volume IV, "The Prom- ise of Technology" (228 pp.), and Volume V, "Se- lected Reports to the Commission" (154 pp.). All five volumes were published by the Government Printing Office in 1952. For the President's letter to Mr. Paley on the cre- ation of the Commission, dated January 22, 1951, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 19. See also Items 191, 192, this volume. 180 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to Italy. June 24, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: I have been advised that a centerless grind- ing machine was shipped from Italy to Ru- mania after the effective date of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 195 1 (the Battle Act). This grinding machine is an item listed by the Administrator, pursuant to Title I of the Battle Act, as one embargoed in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Any shipment of any such items listed automatically results in all military, eco- nomic and financial assistance to Italy being cut off, unless I determine, in accordance with the powers granted to me by Section 103(b) of the Act, that "cessation of aid would clearly be detrimental to the security of the United States". The Administrator of the Act has advised me that aid to Italy should be continued. He made this rec- ommendation after consultation with rep- resentatives of the Departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the Office of Defense Mo- bilization, the Mutual Security Agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central In- telligence Agency, Export-Import Bank, and the National Security Resources Board. For your information, I am attaching a report of the Administrator of the Battle Act to me. This report sets forth the facts in this case, together with his recommenda- tion thereon. 439 [180] June 24 Public Papers of the Presidents After studying the report of the Adminis- trator, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 103(b) of the Battle Act, I have directed that assistance by the United States to Italy be continued. In reaching this de- termination, I have taken into account "the contribution of such country to the mutual security of the free world, the importance of such assistance to the security of the United States, the strategic importance of imports received from countries of the Soviet bloc, and the adequacy of such country's controls over the export to the Soviet bloc of items of strategic importance." Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Kenneth McKellar, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee, the Honorable Clarence Cannon, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and the Honorable James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The attached report of Averell Harriman, Di- rector for Mutual Security and administrator of the Battle Act, was also released. The report con- cluded that although the grinding machine in ques- tion could be used in connection with the manufac- ture of war materials, one such machine would not add significantly to the overall Soviet war potential. The report also found that the original contract for the machine was entered into before passage of the Battle Act and that by the time the United States took steps to persuade the Italian Government to cancel the order, the payment for the grinder had been 75 percent completed. Nevertheless, the Italian Government agreed to a temporary delay in ship- ment which, when it expired, was followed by an agreement with the United States on a further delay. The Italian Government issued a staying order which reached the customs control at the frontier too late to prevent export. The report cited the considerations taken into ac- count in the decision that cessation of aid would be detrimental to the security of the United States: 1. Italy, a key member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, required U.S. aid to increase its production and build up its defense forces within the structure of NATO. 2. United States assistance had contributed sub- stantially to the stability of the present anti-Commu- nist Government in Italy, and the withdrawal of defense support would be reflected in a weakening of the Democratic forces in the country. 3. Italian exports to the Communist bloc made up only 4 percent of the total export trade, and imports from the bloc were of the type which would be difficult to secure from other sources. 4. The Italian export controls were limiting shipments to the bloc of imports from the West, with particular emphasis on items of a strategic nature. 181 Remarks Upon Presenting the Young American Medal for Bravery and the Young American Medal for Service. June 24, 1952 IT IS a great pleasure to perform this service. As you know, one of the most pleasant things I do in this Rose Garden is to award medals for bravery and service. These medals are for bravery and service in the highest degree, and I take great pleasure as President of the United States in presenting them to these young people. note: The President spoke at 12:10 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The selection of the young people to receive the medals was made under an act of Congress (64 Stat. 397) authorizing the Department of Justice to recog- nize and to award to outstanding courageous young Americans a medal for heroism known as the Young American Medal for Bravery and a medal for service and character known as the Young American Medal for Service. Recipients of the medal for bravery were Margaret Galassi, aged 16, of Springfield, 111., and Parker Edward Stratt, aged 10, of Coral Gables, Fla. Miss Galassi had rescued seven children with whom she was babysitting from their burning home, returning twice to the building in order to bring the remain- ing two out of danger. Parker Edward Stratt had risked his life to pull a 9-year-old girl from the jaws of an alligator. The service medal was presented to Stuart Wil- 440 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 25 [182] Ham Oberg, aged 17, of Millinocket, Maine, in rec- ognition of his participation in various public activities. His record of service toward his school, his town, and his country had resulted in his being elected as one of three Hi-Y delegates from the Nation to attend UNESCO. 182 Veto of Bill To Revise the Laws Relating to Immigration, Naturalization, and Nationality. June 25, 1952 To the House of Representatives: I return herewith, without my approval, H.R. 5678, the proposed Immigration and Nationality Act. In outlining my objections to this bill, I want to make it clear that it contains certain provisions that meet with my approval. This is a long and complex piece of legisla- tion. It has 164 separate sections, some with more than 40 subdivisions. It presents a difficult problem of weighing the good against the bad, and arriving at a judgment on the whole. H.R. 5678 is an omnibus bill which would revise and codify all of our laws relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality. A general revision and modernization of these laws unquestionably is needed and long overdue, particularly with respect to immi- gration. But this bill would not provide us with an immigration policy adequate for the present world situation. Indeed, the bill, taking all its provisions together, would be a step backward and not a step forward. In view of the crying need for reform in the field of immigration, I deeply regret that I am unable to approve H.R. 5678. In recent years, our immigration policy has become a matter of major national con- cern. Long dormant questions about the effect of our immigration laws now assume first rate importance. What we do in the field of immigration and naturalization is vital to the continued growth and internal development of the United States — to the economic and social strength of our coun- try— which is the core of the defense of the free world. Our immigration policy is equally, if not more important to the con- duct of our foreign relations and to our responsibilities of moral leadership in the struggle for world peace. In one respect, this bill recognizes the great international significance of our im- migration and naturalization policy, and takes a step to improve existing laws. All racial bars to naturalization would be re- moved, and at least some minimum immi- gration quota would be afforded to each of the free nations of Asia. I have long urged that racial or national barriers to naturalization be abolished. This was one of the recommendations in my civil rights message to the Congress on Feb- ruary 2, 1948. On February 19, 1951, the House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill to carry it out. But now this most desirable provision comes before me embedded in a mass of leg- islation which would perpetuate injustices of long standing against many other nations of the world, hamper the efforts we are making to rally the men of East and West alike to the cause of freedom, and intensify the repressive and inhumane aspects of our immigration procedures. The price is too high, and in good conscience I cannot agree to pay it. I want all our residents of Japanese an- cestry, and all our friends throughout the Far East, to understand this point clearly. I cannot take the step I would like to take, and strike down the bars that prejudice has erected against them, without, at the same time, establishing new discriminations against the peoples of Asia and approving harsh and repressive measures directed at all who seek a new life within our boundaries. I am sure that with a little more time and a little more discussion in this country the public conscience and the good sense of the American people will assert themselves, and 441 [182] June 25 Public Papers of the Presidents we shall be in a position to enact an immigra- tion and naturalization policy that will be fair to all. In addition to removing racial bars to naturalization, the bill would permit Ameri- can women citizens to bring their alien hus- bands to this country as non-quota immi- grants, and enable alien husbands of resident women aliens to come in under the quota in a preferred status. These provisions would be a step toward preserving the integrity of the family under our immigration laws, and are clearly desirable. The bill would also relieve transportation companies of some of the unjustified burdens and penalties now imposed upon them. In particular, it would put an end to the archaic requirement that carriers pay the expenses of aliens detained at the port of entry, even though such aliens have arrived with proper travel documents. But these few improvements are heavily outweighed by other provisions of the bill which retain existing defects in our laws, and add many undesirable new features. The bill would continue, practically with- out change, the national origins quota sys- tem, which was enacted, into law in 1924, and put into effect in 1929. This quota sys- tem— always based upon assumptions at variance with our American ideals — is long since out of date and more than ever un- realistic in the face of present world condi- tions. This system hinders us in dealing with current immigration problems, and is a con- stant handicap in the conduct of our foreign relations. As I stated in my message to Congress on March 24, 1952, on the need for an emergency program of immigration from Europe, "Our present quota system is not only inadequate to most present emer- gency needs, it is also an obstacle to the de- velopment of an enlightened and satisfac- tory immigration policy for the long-run future." The inadequacy of the present quota sys- tem has been demonstrated since the end of the war, when we were compelled to resort to emergency legislation to admit displaced persons. If the quota system remains un- changed, we shall be compelled to resort to similar emergency legislation again, in order to admit any substantial portion of the refu- gees from communism or the victims of overcrowding in Europe. With the idea of quotas in general there is no quarrel. Some numerical limitation must be set, so that immigration will be within our capacity to absorb. But the over- all limitation of numbers imposed by the national origins quota system is too small for our needs today, and the country by country limitations create a pattern that is insulting to large numbers of our finest citi- zens, irritating to our allies abroad, and foreign to our purposes and ideals. The overall quota limitation, under the law of 1924, restricted annual immigration to approximately 150,000. This was about one-seventh of one percent of our total popu- lation in 1920. Taking into account the growth in population since 1920, the law now allows us but one-tenth of one percent of our total population. And since the largest national quotas are only partly used, the number actually coming in has been in the neighborhood of one-fifteenth of one percent. This is far less than we must have in the years ahead to keep up with the growing needs of the Nation for manpower to maintain the strength and vigor of our economy. The greatest vice of the present quota sys- tem, however, is that it discriminates, de- liberately and intentionally, against many of the peoples of the world. The purpose be- hind it was to cut down and virtually elimi- nate immigration to this country from Southern and Eastern Europe. A theory was invented to rationalize this objective. The theory was that in order to be readily assimilable, European immigrants should be admitted in proportion to the numbers of persons of their respective national stocks already here as shown by the census of 1920. Since Americans of English, Irish and Ger- man descent were most numerous, immi- 442 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 25 [182] grants of those three nationalities got the lion's share — more than two-thirds — of the total quota. The remaining third was di- vided up among all the other nations given quotas. The desired effect was obtained. Immi- gration from the newer sources of Southern and Eastern Europe was reduced to a trickle. The quotas allotted to England and Ireland remained largely unused, as was intended. Total quota immigration fell to a half or a third — and sometimes even less — of the an- nual limit of 154,000. People from such countries as Greece, or Spain, or Latvia were virtually deprived of any opportunity to come here at all, simply because Greeks or Spaniards or Latvians had not come here before 1920 in any substantial numbers. The idea behind this discriminatory pol- icy was, to put it baldly, that Americans with English or Irish names were better people and better citizens than Americans with Italian or Greek or Polish names. It was thought that people of West European origin made better citizens than Rumanians or Yugoslavs or Ukrainians or Hungarians or Baits or Austrians. Such a concept is utterly unworthy of our traditions and our ideals. It violates the great political doctrine of the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." It denies the humani- tarian creed inscribed beneath the Statue of Liberty proclaiming to all nations, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free." It repudiates our basic religious concepts, our belief in the brotherhood of man, and in the words of St. Paul that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." The basis of this quota system was false and unworthy in 1924. It is even worse now. At the present time, this quota sys- tem keeps out the very people we want to bring in. It is incredible to me that, in this year of 1952, we should again be enacting into law such a slur on the patriotism, the capacity, and the decency of a large part of our citizenry. Today, we have entered into an alliance, the North Atlantic Treaty, with Italy, Greece, and Turkey against one of the most terrible threats mankind has ever faced. We are asking them to join with us in pro- tecting the peace of the world. We are helping them to build their defenses, and train their men, in the common cause. But, through this bill we say to their people: You are less worthy to come to this country than Englishmen or Irishmen; you Italians, who need to find homes abroad in the hundreds of thousands — you shall have a quota of 5,645; you Greeks, struggling to assist the helpless victims of a communist civil war — you shall have a quota of 308; and you Turks, you are brave defenders of the East- ern flank, but you shall have a quota of only 225! Today, we are "protecting" ourselves, as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants from Eastern Europe. This is fantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen under the communist yoke — they are silenced, fenced off by barbed wire and minefields — no one passes their borders but at the risk of his life. We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries — on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand, to save those who have managed to flee into Western Europe, to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism, to welcome and re- store them against the day when their coun- tries will, as we hope, be free again. But this we cannot do, as we would like to do, because the quota for Poland is only 6,500, as against the 138,000 exiled Poles, all over Europe, who are asking to come to these shores; because the quota for the now sub- jugated Baltic countries is little more than 700 — against the 23,000 Baltic refugees im- ploring us to admit them to a new life here; because the quota for Rumania is only 289, and some 30,000 Rumanians, who have man- aged to escape the labor camps and the mass deportations of their Soviet masters, have asked our help. These are only a few ex- amples of the absurdity, the cruelty of carry- 443 [182] June 25 Public Papers of the Presidents ing over into this year of 1952 the isolationist limitations of our 1924 law. In no other realm of our national life are we so hampered and stultified by the dead hand of the past, as we are in this field of immigration. We do not limit our cities to their 1920 boundaries — we do not hold our corporations to their 1920 capitaliza- tions— we welcome progress and change to meet changing conditions in every sphere of life, except in the field of immigration. The time to shake off this dead weight of past mistakes is now. The time to develop a decent policy of immigration — a fitting in- strument for our foreign policy and a true reflection of the ideals we stand for, at home and abroad — is now. In my earlier mes- sage on immigration, I tried to explain to the Congress that the situation we face in immigration is an emergency — that it must be met promptly. I have pointed out that in the last few years, we have blazed a new trail in immigration, through our Displaced Persons Program. Through the combined efforts of the Government and private agen- cies, working together not to keep people out, but to bring qualified people in, we summoned our resources of good will and human feeling to meet the task. In this program, we have found better techniques to meet the immigration problems of the i95o's. None of this fruitful experience of the last three years is reflected in this bill before me. None of the crying human needs of this time of trouble is recognized in this bill. But it is not too late. The Congress can remedy these defects, and it can adopt legis- lation to meet the most critical problems before adjournment. The only consequential change in the 1924 quota system which the bill would make is to extend a small quota to each of the countries of Asia. But most of the beneficial effects of this gesture are offset by other provisions of the bill. The countries of Asia are told in one breath that they shall have quotas for their nationals, and in the next, that the nationals of the other coun- tries, if their ancestry is as much as 50 per- cent Asian, shall be charged to these quotas. It is only with respect to persons of oriental ancestry that this invidious discrimination applies. All other persons are charged to the country of their birth. But persons with Asian ancestry are charged to the countries of Asia, wherever they may have been born, or however long their ancestors have made their homes outsides the land of their origin. These provisions are without justification. I now wish to turn to the other provisions of the bill, those dealing with the qualifica- tions of aliens and immigrants for admis- sion, with the administration of the laws, and with problems of naturalization and nationality. In these provisions too, I find objections that preclude my signing this bill. The bill would make it even more difficult to enter our country. Our resident aliens would be more easily separated from homes and families under grounds of deportation, both new and old, which would specifically be made retroactive. Admission to our citi- zenship would be made more difficult; ex- pulsion from our citizenship would be made easier. Certain rights of native born, first generation Americans would be limited. All our citizens returning from abroad would be subjected to serious risk of unrea- sonable invasions of privacy. Seldom has a bill exhibited the distrust evidenced here for citizens and aliens alike — at a time when we need unity at home, and the confidence of our friends abroad. We have adequate and fair provisions in our present law to protect us against the entry of criminals. The changes made by the bill in those provisions would result in empowering minor immigration and con- sular officials to act as prosecutor, judge and jury in determining whether acts constitut- ing a crime have been committed. Worse, we would be compelled to exclude certain people because they have been convicted by "courts" in communist countries that know no justice. Under this provision, no matter how construed, it would not be possible for us to admit many of the men and women 444 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 25 [182] who have stood up against totalitarian re- pression and have been punished for doing so. I do not approve of substituting totali- tarian vengeance for democratic justice. I will not extend full faith and credit to the judgments of the communist secret police. The realities of a world, only partly free, would again be ignored in the provision flatly barring entry to those who made mis- representations in securing visas. To save their lives and the lives of loved ones still imprisoned, refugees from tyranny some- times misstate various details of their lives. We do not want to encourage fraud. But we must recognize that conditions in some parts of the world drive our friends to desperate steps. An exception restricted to cases involving misstatement of country of birth is not sufficient. And to make refu- gees from oppression forever deportable on such technical grounds is shabby treatment indeed. Some of the new grounds of deportation which the bill would provide are unneces- sarily severe. Defects and mistakes in ad- mission would serve to deport at any time because of the bill's elimination, retroac- tively as well as prospectively, of the present humane provision barring deportations on such grounds five years after entry. Nar- cotic drug addicts would be deportable at any time, whether or not the addiction was culpable, and whether or not cured. The threat of deportation would drive the addict into hiding beyond the reach of cure, and the danger to the country from drug addic- tion would be increased. I am asked to approve the reenactment of highly objectionable provisions now con- tained in the Internal Security Act of 1950 — a measure passed over my veto shortly after the invasion of South Korea. Some of these provisions would empower the Attorney General to deport any alien who has engaged or has had a purpose to engage in activities "prejudicial to the public interest" or "sub- versive to the national security." No stand- ards or definitions are provided to guide discretion in the exercise of powers so sweep- ing. To punish undefined "activities" de- parts from traditional American insistence on established standards of guilt. To pun- ish an undefined "purpose" is thought control. These provisions are worse than the in- famous Alien Act of 1798, passed in a time of national fear and distrust of foreigners, which gave the President power to deport any alien deemed "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." Alien residents were thoroughly frightened and citizens much disturbed by that threat to liberty. Such powers are inconsistent with our democratic ideals. Conferring powers like that upon the Attorney General is unfair to him as well as to our alien residents. Once fully informed of such vast discretionary powers vested in the Attorney General, Americans now would and should be just as alarmed as Americans were in 1798 over less drastic powers vested in the President. Heretofore, for the most part, deportation and exclusion have rested upon findings of fact made upon evidence. Under this bill, they would rest in many instances upon the "opinion" or "satisfaction" of immigration or consular employees. The change from objective findings to subjective feelings is not compatible with our system of justice. The result would be to restrict or eliminate judicial review of unlawful administrative action. The bill would sharply restrict the present opportunity of citizens and alien residents to save family members from deportation. Under the procedures of present law, the Attorney General can exercise his discretion to suspend deportation in meritorious cases. In each such case, at the present time, the exercise of administrative discretion is sub- ject to the scrutiny and approval of the Con- gress. Nevertheless, the bill would prevent this discretion from being used in many cases where it is now available, and would narrow the circle of those who can obtain relief from the letter of the law. This is most unfortunate, because the bill, in its 55-672—66- 445 [182] June 25 Public Papers of the Presidents other provisions, would impose harsher re- strictions and gready increase the number of cases deserving equitable relief. Native-born American citizens who are dual nationals would be subjected to loss of citizenship on grounds not applicable to other native-born American citizens. This distinction is a slap at millions of Americans whose fathers were of alien birth. Children would be subjected to additional risk of loss of citizenship. Naturalized citi- zens would be subjected to the risk of de- naturalization by any procedure that can be found to be permitted under any State law or practice pertaining to minor civil law suits. Judicial review of administrative denials of citizenship would be severely limited and impeded in many cases, and completely eliminated in others. I believe these provi- sions raise serious constitutional questions. Constitutionality aside, I see no justification in national policy for their adoption. Section 401 of this bill would establish a Joint Congressional Committee on Immigra- tion and Nationality Policy. This commit- tee would have the customary powers to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses, books, papers and documents. But the Committee would also be given powers over the Execu- tive branch which are unusual and of a highly questionable nature. Specifically, section 401 would provide that "The Secre- tary of State and the Attorney General shall without delay submit to the Committee all regulations, instructions, and all other in- formation as requested by the Committee relative to the administration of this Act." This section appears to be another attempt to require the Executive branch to make available to the Congress administrative doc- uments, communications between the Presi- dent and his subordinates, confidential files, and other records of that character. It also seems to imply that the Committee would undertake to supervise or approve regula- tions. Such proposals are not consistent with the Constitutional doctrine of the sepa- ration of powers. In these and many other respects, the bill raises basic questions as to our fundamental immigration and naturalization policy, and the laws and practices for putting that policy into effect. Many of the aspects of the bill which have been most widely criticized in the public debate are reaffirmations or elaborations of existing statutes or administrative proce- dures. Time and again, examination dis- closes that the revisions of existing law that would be made by the bill are intended to solidify some restrictive practice of our im- migration authorities, or to overrule or modify some ameliorative decision of the Supreme Court or other Federal courts. By and large, the changes that would be made by the bill do not depart from the basically restrictive spirit of our existing laws — but intensify and reinforce it. These conclusions point to an underlying condition which deserves the most careful study. Should we not undertake a reassess- ment of our immigration policies and prac- tices in the light of the conditions that face us in the second half of the twentieth cen- tury? The great popular interest which this bill has created, and the criticism which it has stirred up, demand an affirmative an- swer. I hope the Congress will agree to a careful reexamination of this entire matter. To assist in this complex task, I suggest the creation of a representative commission of outstanding Americans to examine the basic assumptions of our immigration policy, the quota system and all that goes with it, the effect of our present immigration and nationality laws, their administration, and the ways in which they can be brought in line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. Such a commission should, I believe, be established by the Congress. Its member- ship should be bi-partisan and divided equally among persons from private life and persons from public life. I suggest that four members be appointed by the President, four by the President of the Senate, and four by the Speaker of the House of Repre- sentatives. The commission should be 446 Harry S. Truman, 7952 June 25 [183] given sufficient funds to employ a staff and it should have adequate powers to hold hear- ings, take testimony, and obtain informa- tion. It should make a report to the Presi- dent and to the Congress within a year from the time of its creation. Pending the completion of studies by such a commission, and the consideration of its recommendations by the Congress, there are certain steps which I believe it is most im- portant for the Congress to take this year. First, I urge the Congress to enact legisla- tion removing racial barriers against Asians from our laws. Failure to take this step profits us nothing and can only have serious consequences for our relations with the peo- ples of the Far East. A major contribution to this end would be the prompt enactment by the Senate of H.R. 403. That bill, al- ready passed by the House of Representa- tives, would remove the racial bars to the naturalization of Asians. Second, I strongly urge the Congress to enact the temporary, emergency immigra- tion legislation which I recommended three months ago. In my message of March 24, 1952, 1 advised the Congress that one of the gravest problems arising from the present world crisis is created by the overpopulation in parts of Western Europe. That condi- tion is aggravated by the flight and expul- sion of people from behind the iron curtain. In view of these serious problems, I asked the Congress to authorize the admission of 300,000 additional immigrants to the United States over a three year period. These im- migrants would include Greek nationals, Dutch nationals, Italians from Italy and Trieste, Germans and persons of German ethnic origin, and religious and political refugees from communism in Eastern Eu- rope. This temporary program is urgently needed. It is very important that the Con- gress act upon it this year. I urge the Congress to give prompt and favorable con- sideration to the bills introduced by Senator Hendrickson and Representative Celler (S. 3109 and H.R. 7376), which will im- plement the recommendations contained in my message of March 24. I very much hope that the Congress will take early action on these recommendations. Legislation to carry them out will correct some of the unjust provisions of our laws, will strengthen us at home and abroad, and will serve to relieve a great deal of the suf- fering and tension existing in the world today. Harry S. Truman note: On June 27 the Congress passed the bill over the President's veto. As enacted, H.R. 5678 is Public Law 414, 82d Congress (66 Stat. 163). On June 30, the President signed Proclamation 2980 (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 161) revising the immigration quota list. For the President's message to Congress on civil rights, dated February 2, 1948, see 1948 volume, this series, Item 20. For the President's message to Congress on aid for refugees and displaced persons, dated March 24, see Item 65, this volume. 183 Remarks to the Washington Student Citizenship Seminar. June 25, 1952 IT IS a pleasure again to receive this group, and I hope that they are enjoying their visit, and getting a lot of information about the Government of the United States while they are here. You are in the White House Rose Garden, where all the greats are received, and where medals are pinned on. I had a medal pin- ning yesterday. Behind you is the White House, which is not the proper name for the house. I don't suppose many of you know what the right name of it is. It is "The President's House." All the silver is engraved with "The Presi- dent's House," and whenever anybody comes to dinner and takes a souvenir — that is, a piece of silver — he can be caught up with because it says "The President's House" on it. 447 [183] June 25 Public Papers of the Presidents The balcony over there is in sight, as you can see, and was constructed to finish the architectural view of the White House on the south facade. If you go down in the yard far enough you will find that it belongs there — as did all those who opposed it, finally, when it was constructed. I hope that you have a chance to visit the various functions of the Government, and see just how they do function. I had my nephew — my brother's oldest boy — here with his four children, and they went to the Senate and the House, and the FBI, and the Bureau of Engraving, and various other places — to Washington's home down at Mount Vernon, and over in Arlington to visit Lee's home. You will find a great many places to visit around here, if you haven't seen them, and they will entertain you and give you information both about your Government and about the history of this great country of ours. I hope all of you are students of history, and I hope every one of you can name the Presidents from Washington to date, and can tell just how they came to be elected and on what platforms and what party elected them. If you can do that, then you are good students of history. I hope you enjoy yourselves very much while you are here. note: The President spoke at 12:48 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 184 Remarks to the Members of the National YMCA and Government Assembly. ]une 26, 1952 THANK YOU very much. You are really doing something for the benefit of the coun- try. You are finding out how government works, and what government under our sys- tem means by actual experience. Now this one person before you here has been from precinct to President all along the line. I have been in elective public office for 30 years. That is one of the reasons I am retiring. I think that is long enough for a man to serve his country. I am going to continue to serve the country, understand, but I will do it in a little freer way than I do now. Learning about government is absolutely essential to people your age, because it is going to be your responsibility now, in a few years — you will be responsible for the opera- tion of the Government. And you must bear that in mind, when you are studying how our Government works. Our Government works on what we call the two-party system. It is supposed to be party responsibility. Sometimes there isn't any, however. But we still have the two- party system. It is a good system. The President is the only official who is elected by the whole country. The Sena- tors, two from each State, represent the States, and the Congressmen represent the districts, and when they get together they represent the whole country, and legislate. And the President is supposed to carry out the legislative acts which the Congress passes when it is possible for them to be carried out. Sometimes it isn't. That is not very often the case, but it can happen. I am very much interested in what you are doing. It is one of the finest things that is taking place in the country. Keep it up. Inform yourselves. It is knowledge that makes power. And if you don't have the knowledge, if you don't understand the Government under which you live, you cer- tainly can't make a contribution to its welfare. It is you young people, as I said awhile ago, who are going to be responsible that this great Republic of ours continues; and it is the greatest republic in the history of 448 Harry S. Truman, 1952 June 26 [185] the world. The Office of President is the greatest office in the history of the world, and the most responsible one in these times. And if you understand your duty, you can make it a lot easier on the President in carrying out his duties as the Chief Ex- ecutive of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 185 Statement by the President on the Need for Deferring the Drafting of Certain Apprentices and Farm Laborers. June 26, 1952 I HAVE today signed an Executive order on essential industrial apprentices and ap- proved a policy on agricultural labor which together will contribute materially to our program of maintaining necessary industrial and farm production consistent with the principles of the Selective Service System. These orders do not permit permanent exemption of any worker from Selective Service. Rather, they provide a more or- derly basis for granting the temporary defer- ments which local boards have customarily extended to qualified individuals. The policies set forth in these documents were developed by the interested Govern- ment agencies and were recommended to the Acting Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization by the Interagency Manpower Policy Committee and the National Labor Management Manpower Policy Committee. The Executive order relating to appren- tices follows recommendations made by Maj. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, and is being ad- ministered under specific regulations issued by General Hershey. General Hershey has assured me that these regulations will provide an orderly flow of needed machinists, mechanics, and other skilled workers for both the military and civilian needs of the Nation. He has also advised me that proper precautions have been taken to prevent deferment of less essential apprentices such as those in the barber, fur, cleaning, candy, and cosmetics fields. Only apprenticeship programs which have been in existence for at least 1 year, which are soundly sponsored, and properly certi- fied, will be eligible under the program. A certification procedure has been established to assure that only bona fide training pro- grams in the most essential trades are accepted. As in the case of college deferments, ap- prentices will be deferred only while making satisfactory progress in their training and only until the training has been completed. The agricultural labor policy is being promulgated by John R. Steelman, Acting Director of Defense Mobilization, with my approval. It provides the Selective Service System and other agencies of the Govern- ment with uniform goals in support of essential farm production. In the face of daily increasing need for farm products, our farms have lost 6,000,000 workers in the last 4 years, and are still losing them to both the military services and to industry. For Selective Service, this policy means continued emphasis on giving temporary de- ferments to skilled workers necessary for substantial quantities of production. For farmers, this policy will require ur- gent efforts to recruit and train replacements for the men whose deferments expire. The Department of Labor is requested under the policy to assist local boards and others with information on the availability and supply of persons with agricultural skills 449 [185] June 26 Public Papers of the Presidents who can replace deferred farm workers. The armed services are asked to refrain from soliciting recruits among farm workers while they are deferred for necessary pro- duction. This is intended for the sake of orderliness in our productive system and does not, of course, affect the right of the workers to enlist. The policy statement also covers sugges- tions to the Department of Agriculture, Federal Security Agency, Civil Service Com- mission, and other interested agencies. I am confident that all the agencies and the public will cooperate with these plans for assuring the production necessary to the support of our defense program. note: The President referred to Executive Order 10366 "Amending the Selective Service Regulations" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 881). See also Items 186, 187. 186 Letter to the Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, Approving a Manpower Policy for Agricultural Labor. ]une 26, 1952 Dear Dr. Steelman: I have studied your proposed Defense Manpower Policy No. 6, dealing with some of the pressing problems which confront us in the field of agricultural manpower. As you know, Secretary Brannan has talked with me about the problems in this area on a number of occasions. I feel that we should do everything we possibly can to insure an adequate supply of agricultural manpower consistent with adherence to the policy of universal service for all men be- tween the ages of 18 54 and 26. If the agencies of Government discharge the responsibilities which you will assign to them under Defense Manpower Policy No. 6, we should make considerable progress in the direction of solving some of our agricul- tural manpower problems. I am in full accord with the policy and suggest you issue it prompdy. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Dr. John R. Steelman, Acting Director, Office of Defense Mobilization, Washington, D.C.] note: Defense Manpower Policy No. 6 is published in the Federal Register (vol. 17, p. 5764). See also Items 185, 187. 187 Letter to the Director, Selective Service System, on Deferment of Farm Workers. June 26, 1952 Dear General Hers hey: I have studied Defense Manpower Policy Number 6 which Dr. John R. Steelman, the Acting Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, has called to my attention. I am in complete accord with the decision of the Director of Defense Mobilization that continued emphasis should be given to the policy formulated by the Congress and set forth in more detail in regulations which I have issued, providing for classifying in a deferred class registrants whose activities are necessary to the maintenance of the produc- tion of substantial quantities of agricultural commodities for market, and who meet the other criteria of your regulations for defer- ment. I feel that this policy should be carried out in a manner consistent with adherence to the policy of universal liability for service for all men between the ages of iSY2 and 26. In reading the policy I am happy to note that the Selective Service System is going to work with the State Agricultural Mobiliza- tion Committees in developing on a state basis methods for rating the productive level 450 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 1 [189] of farms for the purpose of determining where farm production would be hurt the most by loss of manpower to the armed forces. I feel that this represents a very constructive step. I will look forward to receiving a report, through Dr. Steelman, as to the progress made in implementing this particular portion of the policy. I recognize, of course, that Selective Serv- ice alone cannot solve the farm manpower problem. All of the departments and agen- cies that have been given specific responsi- bilities under Manpower Policy No. 6 must discharge those responsibilities in an effec- tive manner if we are to achieve the objec- tives of the policy. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Major General Lewis B. Hershey, Director, Selec- tive Service System, Washington, D.C.] note: See also Items 185, 186. 188 Remarks to Members of the Board of the International Federation of Business and Professional Women. June 27, 1952 IT IS a pleasure indeed to receive the inter- national organization of business and pro- fessional women. I am particularly happy to have it a United Nations international affair, Dame Haslett. I hope you have enjoyed yourselves in the United States, and that you will continue to enjoy yourselves, and that you will find things of interest to take back with you. I think this is one of the ways to create international good feeling. When people associate with each other, they find out that there are not any serious differences between them, and that they can work for the wel- fare of the peace of the world. That's all any of us want. We want peace in the world, and we will continue to work for that as long as it is possible to do so. I expect to continue to work for the same peaceful program when I become a private citizen on the 20th day of next January, just as I have worked for practically 8 years as President of the United States. Again I want to welcome you here. I hope you will continue to enjoy yourselves, in spite of this terrific heat, which I might say, in the California manner, is unusual. note: The President spoke at 12:20 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. Early in his remarks he referred to Dame Caroline Haslett, D.B.E., of London, England, President of the Inter- national Federation of Business and Professional Women. The group had met in New York City, June 24-26. 189 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power Project. July i, 1952 of the same date, between the Canadian Government and our own concerning the St. Lawrence project. These documents mark the official com- mencement of a procedure for getting the St. Lawrence project built if the Congress fails to approve the legislation which is be- My dear Mr. : I am transmitting herewith, for the infor- mation of the Congress, the Application to the International Joint Commission, dated June 30, 1952, for approval of certain works in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway and power project, and an exchange of notes, 451 [189] July i Public Papers of the Presidents fore it for that purpose. Under this pro- cedure, the seaway will be built by the Canadian Government, and the power phase of the project will be built by the Province of Ontario and a United States entity author- ized by the Congress or by the Federal Power Commission to do the United States share of the work. This procedure for building the St. Law- rence project is entirely feasible. At the same time, as I have informed the Congress in January and again in April of this year, from the standpoint of the national interest of the United States, this procedure is only second-best — and a poor second-best at that — to the procedure which has been awaiting Congressional approval for so many years. It is second-best because engineering con- siderations make it more costly to build the seaway on the Canadian side of the River. It is second-best because, as the attached documents make clear, the power consumers will have to repay all the cost of the main dams and control structures, instead of shar- ing that cost with the seaway users. Most important, it is second-best because under the legislation which is before the Congress, the United States would partici- pate equally with Canada in the manage- ment and control of the seaway, while under the arrangement described in the attached documents, Canada will have the sole man- agement and control. Every top official — civilian and military — with responsibilities for the defense of our country has testified that the St. Lawrence project is of exceptional and direct value to our security. Eighty or ninety percent of the traffic through the seaway will probably be United States traffic — including sizeable amounts of badly needed iron ore. The sea- way will be built along our common bound- ary with Canada, where cooperation is obviously of vital importance to the future relations of our two countries. The cost of both the seaway and power phases of the project will be repaid, with interest. And yet in the face of these facts, certain local and special interests in our country who fancy they would be adversely affected, have until now succeeded in blocking Congres- sional approval of United States participation in this project. I know of no more glaring example of short-sightedness in the history of our Nation's development of natural re- sources. Here is a self-liquidating invest- ment, of great importance to our security and to our economic progress — and yet the Con- gress, principally at the urging of certain railroad and private power interests, so far seems willing to turn the whole seaway over to Canada. The attached documents serve notice that the eleventh hour has struck. In a matter of months, in all probability, the proceedings before the International Joint Commission and the Federal Power Commission will have been completed. Until then, if the Congress acts rapidly, we can still join, as we should, as a full partner in building, managing, and controlling this project. I urge the Congress to reject the narrow and selfish arguments of those who oppose the St. Lawrence project. It is going to be built, one way or the other. It is a plain matter of national self-interest for us to join in its construction. It seems inconceivable to me, now that this project is on the eve of accomplishment, that the Congress should allow any local or special interest to divest our country of its rightful place in the joint development of the St. Lawrence River in the interest of all the people of the United States. I strongly recommend, therefore, that the Congress promptly complete action on leg- islation to carry out the 1941 agreement for joint construction of the St. Lawrence sea- way and power project. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. The Application and the exchange of notes are printed in House Document 528 (8 2d Cong., 2d sess.). See also Item 102. 452 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 1 [190] 190 Statement by the President on the Defense Production Act Amendments. July 1, 1952 YESTERDAY I signed S. 2594, the Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, passed by the Congress late Saturday. If I had not approved this measure, our powers to con- tinue the defense production program and the stabilization program would have ex- pired at midnight last night. This new law makes few changes in the production and allocation provisions of the Defense Production Act. As a result, we shall be able to continue our programs for expanding America's defensive strength, for extending military support to the free world, and for cooperating with our allies in the orderly distribution of scarce materials through the International Materials Confer- ence. Moreover, our farm production pro- grams have been strengthened, as I have re- peatedly urged, by repealing the sliding scale in our agricultural laws during this emer- gency period. In addition, the Congress has made some slight improvement in the so-called cheese amendment, which limits our foreign trade and has been so harmful to our relations with friendly nations. Unfortunately, however, the new law weakens our ability to hold down prices and stabilize our economy. At a time when our defense production is still expanding and necessarily contributing to inflationary pres- sures, the Congress has weakened price con- trols, has limited the effectiveness of wage controls, has invited widespread abandon- ment of rent control, and has virtually can- celled selective credit controls. I asked the Congress to strengthen our stabilization ma- chinery and remove some of the "built-in" inflationary features, like the Capehart amendment. But instead the Congress has moved in the other direction. This law gives the American people only very limited protection against the dangers of inflation. If the Congress provides suf- ficient funds for proper administration of this weakened act, and if we have no sudden worsening of the international crisis, and no panic buying, we may be fortunate enough to get through the next 10 months without serious damage to our economy. But this act, nevertheless, forces us to take a serious gamble with inflation, and all of us should recognize that fact. This bill was the target of every favor- seeking lobby of the special interests in this election year. If they had had their way, the law would be much worse than it is. The American people should be grateful to Senator Maybank and Representative Spence, and to the other Members of Congress who fought for an effective law and were success- ful, against great odds, in keeping the bill from being a total loss. One of the bad things the law does is to exempt all fruits and vegetables, fresh, canned and frozen, from price control. This means that the housewife will be ex- posed to higher prices on fully 20 percent of her market basket. It is very likely that in many areas the price of milk will go up as the result of another amendment. Farm- ers will have to pay more for fertilizer as a result of still another amendment. Many other changes have been made in the law, all having the effect of making the administra- tion and enforcement of price controls more difficult. The act exempts from Federal rent control all communities except those designated as critical defense housing areas, unless the local governing bodies affirmatively request con- tinuation of controls prior to September 30, 1952. This opens the way for increases in rents for some 6,000,000 families if the real estate lobbies are able to forestall positive action by local bodies. Credit controls have heretofore played an important role in stabilizing our economy during this emergency, but S. 2594 removes much of the authority for those controls. The act completely eliminates power to re- 453 [190] July i Public Papers of the Presidents impose controls on consumer credit. It re- stricts residential real estate credit controls by requiring that such controls be suspended if the construction of houses in any 3 con- secutive months should fall below a rate of 1.2 million houses a year. This is an an- nual rate that has been exceeded only once in our history. In practical effect, this probably means that the power to control real estate credit expansion will also be eliminated. There is another respect in which this law weakens our defense program. The Con- gress has forbidden the Wage Stabilization Board to make recommendations for the settlement of labor disputes which threaten the defense program. This means that the Wage Stabilization Board method of set- tling disputes is for all practical purposes abolished, even though it has been effective in every case but one. If the Congress has a better way of dealing with labor disputes in defense plants, it should write its views into law. But this new act destroys the existing system without providing any sub- stitute. Thus, the Congress has opened a dangerous gap in the mobilization program. These are some of the problems created by this act. We are less able to do an effec- tive job of stabilization than we would have been had the Congress followed the recom- mendations which I made last February. But I want to make one point absolutely clear. The agencies of the Government given responsibilities under the Defense Pro- duction Act will do everything in their power to see to it that the authority they do have to combat inflation will be effectively and vigorously exerted. If we are to have any chance of success, we must have adequate appropriations. The Congress is now considering appropria- tions for the stabilization agencies. If the Congress fails to provide sufficient funds, even the limited program of controls which this law authorizes will collapse. In the last analysis, economic stabilization and defense production are not the respon- sibility of Government alone. They require the full and unceasing cooperation of every one of our citizens. The law under which we must operate makes it even more impor- tant that all Americans join in the effort to keep prices down by buying carefully, by continuing to save, and by doing their part to keep production at the high levels re- quired if our Nation is to be secure. note: As enacted, S. 2594 is Public Law 429, 82d Congress (66 Stat. 296). 191 Statement by the President on the Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. July i, 1952 I HAVE today taken a number of actions to implement the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, entitled "Re- sources for Freedom," which was submitted to me a week ago. This report tells the story of the needs and resources of this Nation and the nations of the free world extremely well. The docu- ment should serve for years to come as a basic guide in providing adequate supplies of the materials we and other friendly na- tions of the world must have if we are to expand our economy and at the same time remain secure from threats of aggression. The Commission has done a very con- structive job, and I propose to do all that I can to see to it that the Federal Government acts promptly and effectively in continuing the excellent work which the Commission has initiated. To this end I have today taken the following actions: 1. I am transmitting the Commission's report to the Congress. I am not at this time asking for action on specific recom- mendations, but rather I am calling the entire document to the attention of the Con- 454 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 1 [192] gress in the hope that it will be studied by each Member and by the appropriate com- mittees of the Congress. 2. I am directing the National Security Resources Board to undertake a continuing review of the entire materials situation, as recommended in the Commission's report. The National Security Resources Board will, of course, need adequate funds if this ac- tivity is to be carried out effectively and I hope the Congress will provide needed ap- propriations for this vital project. 3. I am also asking the National Security Resources Board to organize a special task force recruited from various Government agencies to study the detailed recommenda- tions of the Commission and to give me, within no more than 60 days, suggestions for carrying them out. 4. I am asking the heads of departments and agencies concerned with the materials problem to study the report and to advise me through the National Security Resources Board, within no more than 60 days, what steps they believe are appropriate in imple- menting these recommendations as they pertain to their respective agencies. 5. I am directing the Bureau of the Budget to make a comprehensive review, from an organizational standpoint, of the operations of the executive branch with respect to the materials problem, and to advise me of its findings within no more than 60 days. The Government, of course, can only do a part of the job. Much of it will have to be done by private industry. Labor orga- nizations, farm groups, and other private bodies can help work out solutions. The universities and private foundations can make a very significant contribution. It is my hope that both public and private groups will join together in the vital task of making certain that in the years to come through wise use of their resources the United States and the nations of the free world will enjoy continued growth and security. note: See also Items 179, 192. 192 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House Transmitting Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. July i, 1952 My dear Mr. ; I am transmitting to the Congress the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, "Resources for Freedom." Our knowledge and understanding of the materials position of the United States and of its allies throughout the free world will be considerably increased by the detailed review which has been prepared by the Com- mission. This is a document which deserves the most careful study by every member of the Congress, and I hope each one of them will take the time to familiarize himself with its contents. This report, the fruit of months of inten- sive study by an independent citizen's group aided by experts drawn from Government, industry, and universities, shows that in the past decade the United States has changed from a net exporter to a net importer of materials, and projects an increasing depend- ence on imports for the future. The report indicates that our altered materials situation does not call for alarm but does call for adjustments in public policy and private activity. In more than seventy specific recommen- dations, the Commission points out the ac- tions which, in its judgment, will best assure the mounting supplies of materials and energy which our economic progress and security will require in the next quarter century. I am requesting the various Government agencies to make a detailed study of these recommendations, and I am directing the 455 [192] July 1 Public Papers of the Presidents National Security Resources Board to as- sume the responsibility of coordinating the findings and of maintaining a continuing review of materials policies and programs as a guide to public policy and private endeav- or. As the need arises for legislation to solve materials problems affecting this Na- tion and other free nations, appropriate rec- ommendations will be made to the Congress. It is my hope that this report and the actions which may be taken as a result of it will contribute significantly to the im- provement of this Nation's materials posi- tion and to the strengthening of the free world's economic security, both of which are the continuing objectives of United States policy. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. See also Items 179, 191. 193 Rear Platform Remarks in Newport, Arkansas. July i, 1952 THIS HAPPENS to be the number one whistlestop of 1952. There are going to be a lot more of them. You have the privilege of being number one. I hope you will be able to hear the re- broadcast of my power program speech to- morrow at Bull Shoals Dam. And that is a good name, you know — Bull Shoals. It will set out the policy of the Government of the United States towards public power, and it will be a part of the Democratic platform of 1952. I am exceedingly sorry that I won't be able to make the same sort of back platform speeches as I did in 1948. I will be work- ing for somebody else in 1952. But I am happy indeed to have your won- derful Governor here with me this after- noon, and your Congressman, and the Secretary of the Army, Frank Pace, and my Congressman of North Arkansas — who really is a Congressman from Missouri. It is a pleasure indeed, and I am going to enjoy every minute of this trip, because I like this part of the country. I have been in every county in this part of the State of Arkansas, and every county in southern Mis- souri. And I used to know everybody in Missouri by his first name when I was run- ning for the Senate, but it has grown up on me. It has been 16 years since I have done that. I have another great citizen of Arkansas here, the Secretary of the Treasury, John W. Snyder. I have got the Secretary of the Senate with me — I call him the third Sen- ator from Arkansas — Leslie Biffle. note: The President spoke at 8:50 p.m. In the course of his remarks he referred to Governor Sid- ney S. McMath, Representative Wilbur D. Mills, Sec- retary of the Army Frank Pace, Jr., Representative James W. Trimble, Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder, and Secretary of the Senate Leslie Biffle, all of Arkansas. For the President's address at Bull Shoals Dam, see Item 194. 194 Address in Arkansas at the Dedication of the Norfork and Bull Shoals Dams. July 2, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Congressman Trimble, Gov- ernor McMath, and distinguished guests: I am of course delighted to be here today. You know, this part of the country is very 456 familiar to me. When I was a boy, my family lived on a farm over in western Mis- souri. When I was a young man, I traveled a great deal in these parts with my father. I Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 2 [194] have since been over nearly every county in south Missouri and north Arkansas. I am glad to be here among so many friends. I am sure that you are all as im- pressed as I am by this huge dam here at Bull Shoals. And the one I saw over at Norfork this morning is almost as big as this one. These dams belong to the people. We are here to dedicate them to the service of the people. Bull Shoals and Norfork Dams will hold back millions of gallons of flood water. The engineers call it acre-feet, but you and I know how much a gallon is. We don't know very much about an acre- foot of water. This water would otherwise go on a rampage down the river, tearing up farmland, and carrying away homes, and filling towns with mud and trash. The electric generators at these dams will have a capacity of more than 230,000 kilo- watts. These dams will have capacity enough to supply four cities the size of Little Rock, Arkansas, or seven cities the size of Springfield, Missouri. When you contem- plate that, you can understand just exactly what you have in these two dams. The reservoirs behind these dams are cre- ating wonderful opportunities for fishing and camping and recreation. I am told that more than 700,000 people visited Norfork Lake last year. And they told me over there that they caught 750,000 pounds of fish out of it, and I guess they will do just as well here when this one gets properly stocked. These are marvelous projects, indeed. They are examples of how men have learned to put the resources of nature to work for human good. But they are examples of something else, too. They are examples of how people have to fight to overcome not only the forces of nature, but also the forces of reaction and selfishness. You people in Arkansas and Missouri know how hard you have had to fight to get these dams built. Bull Shoals and Norfork were opposed — bitterly opposed. And why were they opposed? Because in addition to stopping floods they were to produce hydro- electric power. And right here the public interest ran head-on into private selfishness. For there were some private power companies in this area who thought that nobody should be allowed to produce power but themselves. These private power companies had been given State charters to produce and sell power, and they seemed to think that gave them some sort of divine right to prevent anyone else from producing electricity for the public good. They fought against these dams for years. They made speeches, they put ads in the papers, they appeared before congressional committees, trying by every means — fair and foul alike — to prevent these dams from being started. And I was in the Senate at the time, and I know exactly the program they put on. You may remember that the Arkansas Power and Light Company built an expen- sive working model of a dam. This model was supposed to prove that you could not have flood control and power in the same project. The company carted that thing all over the State of Arkansas, trying to fool people. They didn't fool anybody but themselves. I hope the gentlemen who built that model will come up here and take a look at Bull Shoals and Norfork. They will see how foolish they were. These great dams are stopping floods and they are producing power — at the same time and in the same projects. It's pretty hard to argue against a fact when it is right before you. But it isn't enough simply to produce power at dams like these. That power is no good unless it gets to the people who need it, and at a cost they can afford to pay. Power can make a tremendous difference in people's lives, as many of you here know from your own experience. Electricity can replace the coal oil lamp, the hand-operated pump. It can replace hand milking and the old fashioned washboard. I have a couple of nephews on the farm up home. 457 [194] July 2 Public Papers of the Presidents They milk a lot of cows — and only two of them. And if they didn't have electric milking machinery they couldn't do it. Farm families and town families need elec- tric refrigerators, and freezers, and hay dry- ers, and food grinders, and they can put electricity to a hundred other uses. That's where this power ought to go — to lighten the burdens of farmers and workers and housewives. And as long as I have anything to do with it, that's where the power will go. But the private power companies have a contrary idea. Right now, they are trying to stop farmers of this area from getting the benefit of low-cost hydroelectric power through electric cooperatives. The power companies have been bringing lawsuits, and running advertisements, and appearing be- fore Congress. Why are they doing that? I'll tell you why. It is to try and make the farmers pay more for their electricity. It's just as simple — and as shocking — as that. The private power companies around here made a great hullabaloo about these dams being what they called socialism. The pres- ident of the Southwestern Gas and Electric Company went up to Washington and told a congressional committee that these dams would be a "method toward the socializa- tion of the electric industry." I really brought you good luck. It looks like it is going to rain. That's what they say about a lot of things the Government is doing these days. Take the American Medical Association — it uses the same slogan in its fight against better health and hospital services for the common man. The real estate lobby uses the same lying slogan in its fight against housing pro- grams. In other words, every time we try to do something for the people, some special interest pops up and yells "socialism." And that's what has happened here. And you know there is just as much truth in the other things as there was in this, and so guide yourselves accordingly. Now, I should like to give the private power companies a little warning. You 458 can't fool the people of this country. No matter how much of the consumers' money you spend on false and misleading advertis- ing, you just can't beat the commonsense of the American people. I call your attention to something that Mr. Doyle Pope, a farmer over here in Norman, Oklahoma, told the Senate Appropriations Committee in May of this year. Mr. Pope was speaking on behalf of his neighbors in the rural electric coop- eratives of this area. Now Mr. Pope said, and I quote him verbatim from the rec- ord of the Congressional Appropriations Committee: "We are getting more than a little bit fed up with utility companies who talk out of both sides of their face, who smear us farm- ers as socialists and who have the gall to come before Congress and say that they are actually here to protect us against a Com- munist-inspired plot to take over the entire utility industry. . . ." This is Mr. Pope talking, now. "For 17 years we have been the objects of an unparalleled campaign of smear and vili- fication on the part of certain power com- panies. They come before this committee each year and attack us. When we want protection, we know by this time that we are not going to get it from the power com- panies. The only kind of protection they have to oflfer is the kind of protection that Stalin gave Poland." That is what Mr. Pope said. That's not me talking at all, although I think he said a pretty good mouthful. I say to the private power companies, take notice. Mr. Pope is not a Government em- ployee, he is a farmer. He is not speaking for a Government agency, he is speaking for himself and his neighbors. Sooner or later the private power com- panies are going to find out that they cannot stand in the way of what the people need in this country. And the sooner they find that out, the better it will be for everybody con- cerned, including themselves. We don't want to pulverize the private power com- panies. We want to help them, but we want Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 2 [194] to be darned sure that they don't "help" us out of business in things like that. But no matter what the private power companies do or say, if I have my way about it we are going right ahead to develop our water resources all over this country for the benefit of all the people. Right here in this area, we need at least half a dozen more dams like Bull Shoals and Norfork before we will begin to have the rivers harnessed for the welfare of the people. I have just asked the Congress to appropriate money for Table Rock Dam, on this same river up in Missouri. I hope they will approve those funds, because Table Rock should be started this year. But we need something more than big dams on the rivers. We have to go up the tributaries, and up the small creeks, and do something about flood waters up there, where the rain hits the ground. We need to plant trees and sow grass to hold water that now runs off bare land. We need more contour plowing, more terracing, more cover crops. We need a lot of small dams up on the little creeks — many of them the sort of dams you could build with a couple of draglines and a bulldozer. There have been some wonderful experi- ments made in this sort of work. Over on the Washita River, where it crosses from Texas into Oklahoma, the farmers and the Government have taken one little water- shed— the Sandstone Creek watershed — and have shown in practice what ought to be done everywhere. As a result, the flood damage in that little watershed has been reduced an estimated 98 percent. Now General Pick and I have been work- ing for 30 years trying to get a general flood program in this whole Mississippi Valley, and we have been stymied at every point. When the flood comes they say to General Pick and they say to me, "Well, stop this flood right now." Flood control is a continuing and a lasting proposition, and the program that General Pick and I want will take 20 years to con- summate. Sometime or other we are going to get this done, in spite of all the opposition. Now this project over here in Washita Valley undoubtedly will be called by the special interest fellows "socialism at the grassroots." As a matter of fact, it is just one example of what can be done all over our great country. We need to treat the lands on which the rain falls, to build small dams on the little creeks, and to build big dams and levees on the main rivers. In this way, we can do more than stop floods. We can get more farm production, more electric power, more reclamation, navigation, recreation, and other benefits. The money put into these projects will prove bread cast upon the waters — really cast upon the waters. It will return the cost many times over in benefits to the people of this region. We have been doing the same sort of thing for people all over the country and we are going to keep right on doing it, no matter what the opposition may have to say. And I want to say to you if it had not been for the New Deal and the Fair Deal over the last 20 years, you wouldn't have these dams and these improvements on these other rivers like it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. I'd like to see the day when every major river in our country is under control from its source to its mouth, when they are all wealth-givers instead of wealth-destroyers, when every one is running clean and pure and doing the work it ought to do for the people of this country. And that wouldn't take too long. It could be done in my life- time. I have an expectancy of about 20 years. I had a fine commission look into this matter to help us find the best way to do the job. Mr. Lewis Jones, who was then presi- dent of the University of Arkansas, was a member of it. I have been studying the re- port of that commission. It is probably the best and most comprehensive report ever made on the development of water resources. Before I leave office, I expect to have some important recommendations stemming from 459 [i94] July 2 Public Papers of the Presidents that report to be presented to the Congress. We can develop our country in the way we would like to see it done. We can pro- vide more jobs and more homes and more food for our growing population. We can provide a rising standard of living for our people. But if we do that, we must use all our natural resources to the best possible ad- vantage. We must use them for the benefit of all the people. By 1975 we are going to need two and a half times as much electric power as we pro- duce today. That means we must develop hydroelectric power at every site where it is feasible. We cannot let our development programs be stopped by the private power lobby or any other selfish interest. Now I want to remind you — this sprinkle may make you a little damp, but you won't be a bit damper than if you sat out there in the hot sun and sweated it out. So just sit still, and take the shower. Those of you who are Methodists can appreciate it. Of course, being a Baptist, I like to be dunked. You know, all these special interest lobbies are ganged up together to work against the public interest. The special interests that have fought against flood control and power development are teamed up with the special interests that have fought against price supports for farm products. These same special interest lob- bies have fought against minimum wages for the working people. They have fought against advances in housing and health and education. They keep yapping about "socialism" and a lot of other silly slogans to try and stop every measure for the good of the people. Well, we have been fighting them, and we have been licking them, that kind of opposition — for 20 years we have been doing that. And I don't think we're going to stop now. Because the progressive policies we have been following have brought more prosperity and more happiness and more real freedom to the people of the United States than any people ever had, anywhere on earth — in the history of the world. Think of that. My friends, I say to you that the progres- sive policies of the last 20 years have been the salvation of this country. They have brought us out of the depression. They have enabled us to fight and win the Second World War. They are making us able now to be strong leaders of the fight for freedom against communism in the world. You people here in Arkansas, and here in the South, can see better than almost anyone else in our country what amazing changes have been brought about in 20 years. Look around you. Look at your own farms and businesses, look at your homes and your children. You know what it was like in the South in the 1930's. You saw the backward farms, and the struggling businesses, and the bank failures. You saw the raw materials from your farms and forests going to other regions. What a difference today! I say to you, what a difference today! The New Deal and the Fair Deal have done a lot for the whole country, but I be- lieve they have done more for the South than any other part of it. I know the New Deal and the Fair Deal have done more for the South than any other national administra- tion in this country's history — than all the administrations in the history of the United States put together. Give that some thought, if you like. New businesses and industries have sprung up all over the South. Arkansas, together with her neighbors in Louisiana and Texas, will soon be turning out more aluminum than the whole Nation did in 1940. Chemicals, and paper, and fertilizer, and textiles, and hundreds of other things are being turned out in new factories built in the South. Look at the farms. They are producing 460 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 2 [194] more and better crops. Livestock and dairy products are coming up fast alongside the old staples of cotton and tobacco. Farm in- come in the South is four or five times what it was 20 years ago. Machines and elec- tricity have done away with backbreaking labor in the fields and drudgery in the home. Here in Arkansas, in the early logo's, only one farm — listen to this, now — only one farm in every 100 was connected for elec- tricity. Just one out of 100. Today, nearly 80 out of 100 — or 140,000 Arkansas farms — are connected to the highlines. This came about mainly through the good work of the Rural Electrification Administration co-ops. There are about a million people in Ar- kansas and Missouri getting power from RE A co-ops. There's a lot of people would like to put them out of business, but I am not going to let them. The changes that have come about in the South are not just matters of new businesses and more productive farms. The whole way of living has become better. You live in better homes. You travel more. Your children are healthier and better educated. Your whole economic and social pattern has changed — rapidly and permanently — for the better. These things did not come about by acci- dent, my friends. They came about be- cause you and your Government fought and overcame the selfish interests, the stand- patters, and the reactionary lobbies. Prog- ress in the South has come about because of TVA and other public works programs such as these we are dedicating today. It has come about because you had a Government that was interested in good roads, good schools, and good health. Progress in the South has come about be- cause the national policies of these 20 years have been directed to meet human needs, and not just to meet private greed. The progressive programs of these 20 years were not programs on paper, they were action programs. Things were done. We took action to lift wages, and put a floor under farm prices, and create new businesses. We took action to bring about fair in- comes and equality of opportunity for every- one. We took action to put natural re- sources to work for the good of all the people. It is good to remember these things, and I think about them a great deal. These two great dams that we are dedicating today are symbols of the progress that has come to the South. And they are symbols of the strug- gle and the effort that has to take place to achieve that progress. Remember these things this year, when you see and hear the storm of political propa- ganda that will be put out to try and turn back the clock. Well, we can't turn the clock back. It just won't run that way. We don't want to turn back the clock. We want to keep moving forward. That means we have to keep on fighting the pull- backs and the reactionaries. The progressive growth of the South — and of the whole Nation — is what we want to continue. That is the way for our Nation to gain in strength and prosperity in the years ahead. That is the way toward peace and happi- ness for all the people of this great land. That is the way to attain peace in the world and, with God's help, peace will come to us and to the world, if we continue this pro- gram of progress instead of accepting one of reaction. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at n a.m. In his open- ing words, he referred to Representative James W. Trimble, and Governor Sidney S. McMath, both of Arkansas. Later he referred to Lt. Gen. Lewis A. Pick, Chief of Engineers, United States Army. For the President's statement upon making public the report by the Water Resources Policy Commis- sion, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 306. 461 [i95] July 2 Public Papers of the Presidents 195 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Arkansas. July 2, 1952 [1.] Bull Shoals, Arkansas (Outdoor luncheon at Bull Shoals Dam, 12:08 p.m.) This is sort of like being back in the Senate. It isn't very often that a President gets a chance to make two speeches at the same place and on the same day. I do appreciate the hospitality that you have extended to us. We all appreciate it. It has been a grand day for me. I am not in the same position as the fellow was who was going to the funeral of his wife, and the undertaker told him that he would have to ride with his mother-in-law. He said, "Well, hell, I could, but it's just going to spoil the whole day for me." That did not happen to me. I had a per- fect day, and it has not been spoilt. I want to thank you for this wonderful dinner you have given us. I understand now that it is going to be my job to go with General Pick and pry this bridge open across the dam down here. And I guess the sooner I get that done the better, because I under- stand some of you may want to go home that way. [2.] Batesville, Arkansas (Rear platform, 3:12 p.m.) The President does have many burdens. He has many pleasures. Today is one of them. I don't think I have had a more pleasant day since 1948. We had a wonderful meeting up here at this dedication of these two great dams in the northern part of Arkansas. And they mean something. They mean something for your benefit. They mean something for the welfare of this part of the world, and they mean something to the Democratic Party. And as I said up at Bull Shoals Dam, the welfare of the South is wrapped up in the Democratic Party. [At this point someone in the audience shouted, "Amen."] It sounds like a good old Methodist camp meeting. I have had, I think, one of the most pleasant days I have spent. It has been a pleasure to be with you, and I can't tell you how very much I appreciate your coming out to greet the Chief Executive of the United States. As your Congressman has said, there is no position in the history of the world that equals the Presidency of the United States. It is not the man who occu- pies it, it is the Office that is the greatest in the history of the world. Now the welfare of all the people is the job of the President of the United States. He is the only lobbyist in Washington who is the lobbyist for all the people. Everybody else has some special interest, and you can't blame them for that. I don't. But when the President forgets that he represents all the people of the greatest country in the history of the world, he is no longer the President of all the people. I have tried to be just that. I hope I have. Some of you don't agree with everything I want to do, and I don't blame you for that — I don't blame you for that — that is an American privilege. But you will find that most of the things for which I stood have been for your welfare and benefit. There is not a man or woman in this audience who is not better off as a result of 20 years of Democratic rule. Now, if you want to throw that out the window and go off after false gods, that is your business, and I can't stop you. But just do a little thinking, and you will find that your interests are with the party that repre- sents the people as a whole, and not special interests. Thank you very much. 462 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 2 [195] [3.] Newport, Arkansas (Airport, 4:35 p.m.) Congressman Mills, distinguished guests: It is always a very great pleasure for me to appear before a crowd like this, because by doing that you can understand just ex- actly what kind of a person the President of the United States is. A lot of people misrepresent him. They tell a lot of tales about what he does, and what he believes, and what he is. But when you see and talk to him — and he can talk to you — you find out that his interest is entirely your interest. Now a great many things happen to the President when he is on a tour. We were driving along down the road today, and our advance police cars pushed the people off the road. And we came by a great big truck, with a tough truckdriver in it, and he was very much put out because he had been pushed off the road. And he asked me, he says, "Who do you think you are, the President of the United States?" "Well," I said, "sometimes people call me that, and I think I earned it in 1948." And he was very much surprised. And so was I, because I think he was happy when he found out that the President of the United States had really pushed him off the road. If it had been some other person, he might have been in a frame of mind to cause trouble. I know a story about President Coolidge. President Coolidge always arose early — like I do — and he transacted a lot of business be- fore anybody else got up in the White House. And along about 7 o'clock in the morning, he telephoned down to the pantry and said that he would like to have his breakfast. And the new waiter on the job didn't recognize his voice, and he said, "Who do you think you are, the President of the United States?" "Well," he said, "I was elected President of the United States. I would like to have my breakfast." The fellow said, "All right, you shall have it. I will bring it up right away." But this trip down here has been a most satisfactory one. I have been able to see people in Arkansas, and to tell people in Arkansas exactly what a Democratic ad- ministration means to the South. I hope all of you will listen to or read the speech I made up at Bull Shoals Dam. You will find that the welfare of this country has always been the first thing in the minds of the people who are now running the coun- try. You will find that the welfare of the farmer, the laboringman, and the business- man has been the first idea in the minds of the people who are now running the Gov- ernment. And you will find a lot of other things that will be of very great interest to you. You will also find that this part of the world, and the South generally, has profited as no other part of the country has profited from the fact that the Democrats have been in control of the Government for the past 20 years. And you will find that your in- terests are wrapped up in that control for the next 4 years. Now, I announced on March 29th that I do not intend to run for reelection. I will have been in office nearly 8 years by the 20th of January 1953, and on the 8th of May 1953, I will be 69 years old — or young, whichever way you want to put it. I told them this morning that I have an expectancy of 20 years, but this thing you must remember, that the oldest man who was ever elected President of the United States was 68 years old, and he lived just 1 month after he was inaugurated. I have no ambition to go out in that way. You know, politicians have a way of staying too long. They either have to be carried out feet first, or they have to be kicked out. Now, I don't want that to happen to me. And I will still be just as interested in the welfare of the country, and in the welfare of the Democratic Party, as I have been as an officeholder for the last 30 years. I want to express my appreciation for the 463 [i95] July 2 Public Papers of the Presidents hospitality and the cordiality of your section to me today all along the trip that I have taken. I have had a grand time with your great progressive Governor, Sid McMath. I think he is one of the great Governors of the 48 States. And it is my private opinion — and I've got no business monkeying with politics in Arkansas — that you ought to send him back to the Governor's chair this fall when the election is held. And I hope you will do just that. Thank you a lot for your cordiality, your hospitality, and your grand reception of the President of the United States. note: In the course of his remarks on July 2 the President referred to Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas. 196 Message to the Congress Transmitting Sixth Annual Report on U.S. Participation in the United Nations. July 3, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I transmit herewith, pursuant to the United Nations Participation Act, a report on the work of the United States in the United Nations during 1951. This will be my last report, as President, to the Congress on our participation in the United Nations. I have dedicated my seven years as Presi- dent of the United States to working for world peace. That has been my paramount aim since becoming President. The first order I issued after being sworn into office on April 12, 1945, was that the United States should carry out its plan to participate in the United Nations Conference, which met on April 25 in San Francisco. Since that time the United Nations has been the main- stay of our work to build a peaceful and decent world. During these years the United Nations has faced many trials and difficulties. In 1945 there were high hopes that this partner- ship of nations would quickly lead to per- manent peace and the advancement of the general welfare of the nations. But these hopes have been dimmed by the conflicts of the succeeding years and by the hostile atti- tude of the Soviet Union. As a result, voices have been raised, questioning the value for us of the United Nations and the need for maintaining it. Nevertheless, in spite of all these difficul- ties and discouragements, the United Na- tions remains the best means available to our generation for achieving peace for the community of nations. The United Na- tions, in this respect, is vital to our future as a free people. In this message I want to ex- plain why this is true and to sum up a few of the reasons why we should continue to support the United Nations in this dangerous period in the history of mankind. The need for a world organization of nations should have been made clear to us by the First World War. But President Wilson's pioneering efforts to organize world peace through the League of Nations were thwarted by some Americans who still thought we could turn back the clock of his- tory. We had to pay a terrible price for that kind of narrow thinking in the Second World War. Our victory over the Axis gave us another chance to work with the other nations in a united effort to prevent war. This time we assumed our responsibilities and took part in launching a far stronger world organiza- tion for peace. In the United Nations we have pledged our support to the basic principles of sover- eign equality, mutual respect among nations, and justice and morality in international af- fairs. By the Charter all United Nations members are bound to setde their disputes peacefully rather than by the use of force. They pledge themselves to take common action against root causes of unrest and war, 464 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 3 [196] and to promote the common interests of the nations in peace, security, and general well- being. These principles are not new in the world, but they are the only sure foundation for last- ing peace. Centuries of history have made it clear that peace cannot be maintained for long unless there is an international organiza- tion to embody these principles and put them into effect. The United Nations provides a world- wide forum in which those principles can be applied to international affairs. In the General Assembly all member nations have to stand up and be counted on issues which directly involve the peace of the world. In the United Nations no country can escape the judgment of mankind. This is the first and greatest weapon against aggression and international immorality. It is the greatest strength of the United Nations. And be- cause we, as a Nation, sincerely desire to establish the rule of international justice, this is a precious instrument, a great asset, that we should constantly seek to reinforce, that we should never ignore or cast away. This great moral value of the United Na- tions has been clearly demonstrated with respect to the conduct of the Soviet Union. The Soviet leaders have been dominated by their doctrines of communism, by the concept of the use of force, unchecked by ethical considerations. This concept has led the Kremlin into a course of international conduct, which threatens the peace of the world. By stirring up class warfare, sub- verting free governments, and employing lies, intimidation, and conquest, the Soviet Union has pursued a policy of extending its control without regard to the sovereignty of other nations or respect for their rights. This policy might have been irresistible if it had not been clearly and decisively brought to the bar of world opinion in the United Nations. The proceedings of the United Nations, time and time again, have proclaimed to the world that the Soviets have not lived up to the principles of liberty, morality, justice, and peace to which they profess to subscribe. Through the United Nations the interna- tional conscience has relentlessly exposed and sternly resisted the attempts of the Kremlin to impose a rule of force upon the peace- loving nations of the world. This process has strengthened freedom. It has given courage to the faint-hearted, who might otherwise have yielded to the forces of communism. It has presented the truth to those who might have been deceived by Communist propaganda. And, as a re- sult, the principles of international justice, of freedom and mutual respect, still exercise a far greater sway over the minds of men than the false beliefs of communism. By itself, of course, this moral function of the United Nations would not be enough. The collective conscience of the world is not enough to repel aggression and establish order. We have learned that moral judg- ments must be supported by force to be effective. This is why we went into Korea. We were right in what we did in Korea in June 1950; we are right in holding firm against aggression there now. Korea might have been the end of the United Nations. When the aggression be- gan, the free nations might have yielded their principles and followed the dreary road of appeasement that, in the past, had led from Manchuria to Munich and then to World War II. But Korea had the opposite effect. When the Communist aggressors brutally violated the Republic of Korea, the United Nations acted with unprecedented speed and rallied the international conscience to meet the challenge. And, with our coun- try proudly in the lead, the free nations went into the conflict against aggression. It is profoundly heartening to remember that far-off Ethiopia, which had been one of the first victims of the fatal policy of the 1930's, sent troops to fight in Korea. The free nations now understand that nobody can be safe anywhere unless all free nations band together to resist aggression the first time it occurs. In Korea the United Nations forces have 465 [196] July 3 Public Papers of the Presidents repelled Communist aggression, they have forced the aggressors to abandon their ob- jectives and negotiate for an armistice, and they have demonstrated that the course of conquest is mortally dangerous. The suc- cess of the United Nations in repelling the attack in Korea has given the free world time to build its defensive strength against Communist aggression. We are working to strengthen the United Nations by building up a security system in accordance with the purposes of the Charter that will protect the community of nations against aggression from any source. We are working, in important regions of the world, to build the pillars of this collective strength through the North Atlantic Treaty Orga- nization, the Rio treaty, and the security treaties in the Pacific. All this is being done under the Charter as a means of fulfilling the United Nations purpose of maintaining world peace. The progress we have made since the Korean aggression started has now begun to tip the scales toward real security for ourselves and all other peace-loving peoples. Such measures are necessary to meet the present threat of aggression. But we can- not admit that mankind must suffer forever under the burden of armaments and the ten- sions of greatly enlarged defense programs. We must try in every way not only to settle differences peaceably but also to lighten the load of defense preparations. In this task the United Nations is the most important if not the only avenue of progress. On October 24, 1950, in an address to the General Assembly of the United Nations, I outlined the principles which must guide disarmament. This was followed up by concrete proposals, which were presented at the 195 1 session of the General Assembly in Paris. These proposals involved a world census of armaments, a reduction of arma- ments and armed forces, and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, all under a foolproof system of inspection. The Dis- armament Commission of the United Na- tions is now discussing these proposals, and if they are adopted they will not only en- hance world security but also free vast energies and resources of the world for con- structive ends. This program of disarma- ment offers a way out of the conflict of our times. If the Soviet Union will accept it in good faith, it will be possible to go forward at the same time to reconcile other conflict- ing national interests under the principles of international morality. These disarmament proposals emphasize anew that our objective is world peace. We hope that the day will come when the Soviet Union, seeing that it cannot make aggres- sion and subversion work, will modify its policies so that all nations can live together peacefully in the same world. Therefore we must continue to test Soviet willingness to take tangible steps toward easing interna- tional tensions. We must continue to keep the door open in the United Nations for the Soviet Union to join the great majority of countries on the road to peace. Among the nations of the free world, the United Nations performs the valuable func- tion of settling disputes and terminating conflict. It has been notably successful in localizing and diminishing dangerous situa- tions which might otherwise have torn the free world apart and paved the way for Communist expansion. In Indonesia, Pal- estine, and Kashmir the United Nations stopped serious fighting and persuaded the combatants to take steps toward a peaceful settlement of their differences. In many other cases the United Nations has prevented disputes from erupting into violence. We must remember that the challenge of international lawlessness is not only military but also political and economic. The United Nations is helping dependent peoples to move toward greater freedom. The United Nations is taking measures to promote ex- tensive international progress in such fields as agriculture, communication and trans- portation, education, health, and living standards. Its technical assistance programs and our own Point Four activities are pro- viding dramatic examples of tangible accom- 466 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 3 [197] plishments at relatively little cost. The United Nations in this way is helping to build healthier societies, which in the long run are the best defense against communism and the best guaranty of peace. During the past seven years our work in the United Nations has been carried out on a strictly nonpartisan basis. Able men and women from both political parties and both Houses of Congress have represented this country in the General Assembly. Never- theless partisan attacks have been made on the United Nations. Some of these attacks are made in a spirit of impatience that can only lead to the holocaust of world-wide war. Most of those who urge us to "go it alone" are blind to the fact that such a course would destroy the solid progress toward world peace which the United Nations has made in the past seven years. I am con- fident that the American people will reject these voices of despair. We can win peace, but we cannot win it alone. And, above all, we cannot win it by force alone. We can win the peace only by continuing to work for international justice and morality through the United Nations. Harry S. Truman note: The report is published in House Document 449 (82a1 Cong., 2d sess.). See also Item 197 [3]. 197 The President's News Conference of July 3, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] Have you all recovered from your trip? 1 Q. Not yet, sir. the president. Tony 2 said there was too much going on. Q. It was a little busy. [Laughter] [2.] the president. I have got a couple of statements I want to read to you. They will be mimeographed and available over at the house. They won't be here. Mr. Short: 3 Not immediately. the president. Not immediately. [Reading] "I understand that a good many of the steel companies are ready to settle with the union on all the issues. "I also understand that these companies are being prevented from settling because pressure is being put on them by other steel companies. "This appears to me to be a conspiracy against the public interest and not a labor dis- 1 On July 2 the President had participated in the dedication of the Norfork and Bull Shoals dams in northern Arkansas (see Items 193-195). 2 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 3 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. pute. In my opinion, it does not call for the use of the national emergency provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. "It calls for honest collective bargaining between the individual companies and the union. Also, those companies now in agree- ment with the union should consummate the agreements and begin producing steel for the welfare of this country." Now, just to save you a lot of time and thought, that's all the questions I am going to answer on the steel situation. Q. I think that covers it pretty well, sir. [3.] the president. Well, I have got an- other thing here that you will be interested in. And as I say, both of these things will be mimeographed for you when you get back over to the house. [Reading] "I have sent up to Congress today a report on this country's activities in the United Nations during the last year.4 "As I said in my letter of transmittal, I be- lieve the United Nations is the mainstay of our work to build a peaceful and decent world. I think the United Nations is vital to our future as a free nation. I am sure that 4 See Item ic 467 [197] July 3 Public Papers of the Presidents the great majority of the people of the United States, regardless of political party, support the United Nations." Now this is the important part. [Continuing reading] "I have asked Mrs. Roosevelt to talk about the United Nations at the Democratic National Convention, and she has kindly consented to do so. I made this request because Mrs. Roosevelt has ren- dered a great service to her country in her work in the United Nations, and because I want everyone to appreciate clearly what the United Nations means to us." Now I will try to answer questions. Q. Mr. President, you talk about one con- spiracy. Is there the beginning of another conspiracy against the United Nations? the president. The statements speak for themselves, and if you will read the message that I sent to the Congress, that will answer your question. Q. Yes sir — if I may intrude — I also read the letter in front of your report that talks about partisan attacks on the United Nations. I wonder if you could enlarge on that? the president. You have read those par- tisan attacks. It came out in your paper, some of them did. Q. Also, I think there is a bill in Congress. Are you thinking of that — relating the president. No, no. The letter speaks for itself, and it means just what it says. There is no hidden meaning in it at all. Q. Do you know what date she will speak ? the president. No, I don't — no, I don't. The National Chairman will set that date. [4.] Q. Mr. President, I have another one to ask you, also. Could you comment now on the merits of the new Fair Trade Practices Act? the president. I haven't seen it, so of course I can't comment on it. When it comes to me, why then I will make my comment.5 [5.] Q. Mr. President, you stirred up a real hornet's nest in Arkansas politics yes- terday when you endorsed Governor McMath for another term,6 and all of his political opponents today — in the Gover- nor's race — claim you were paying back a political obligation because he has been faithful to you. the president. That is news to me. I think Governor McMath has made a good Governor, and my statement stands for just what it is worth and just what I said — no hedging on it at all. [6.] Q. Mr. President the president. Yes, Eddie.7 Q. 1 have been assigned to ask this question — I know nothing about it at all, sir — [laughter] the president. All right, Eddie. Q. It seems that the Federal Trade Com- mission has a report on an alleged oil cartel. Could you tell us when that will be made public, or what disposition will be made of it? the president. It is a document that is not for publication at the present time.8 It has been — the committee which is headed by Senator Hennings has had access to it. Q. Mr. President, is the reason that it will not be made public at this time one of na- tional security, or other considerations? the president. There are other considera- tions. [7.] Q. Mr. President, I am asking this for the Bavarian radio system in Germany. Does the American Government consider the opposition of many Germans to a new Ger- man army as a true change of mind of these Germans regarding militarism ? the president. I have no comment. [8.] Q. Mr. President, as we told you when you got aboard the plane yesterday at Newport, a number of people out there in Arkansas regarded you as the logical Demo- cratic candidate this year. If it were to come about that the Democratic convention were to 6 For the President's statement upon signing the "fair-trade laws" bill, see Item 204. 6 See Item 195 [3]. 7 Edward T. Folliard of the Washington Post. 8 See also Item 221 [11]. 468 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 3 [197] give you the nomination after the fact, would you turn it down? the president. Now, you are asking a hypothetical question. There are a lot of people that feel the same way the people in Arkansas do, and I am glad they do. If everybody was happy and cracking his heels together because I got out of the way, I would feel very sad about it. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, the El Paso Times had an editorial recendy that you would have veto power on any Democratic nomi- nee. Would you comment on that? the president. That is news to me. That's another speculative proposition. [10.] Q. Mr. President, in view of the injustice done to Mr. Lattimore 9 by a Seattle travel agent's tale, do you think the proce- dure of the State Department in regard to leaving the country should be strengthened — or tightened, rather? the president. We are looking into that situation, and I hope another one like it will never come up. In fact, if I can prevent it, it won't. [11.] Q. Mr. President, have you signed the Puerto Rican constitution resolution? the president. It hasn't come to me yet. I will sign it when it does.10 [12.] Q. Mr. President, do you regard Governor Stevenson's statement in Houston last week as one that indicated he is avail- able for the nomination? the president. Your interpretation is as good as mine. I have no comment on it. Q. Mr. President, I beg to differ with you, sir. You were right in 1948 and we weren't. [Laughter] the president. Thank you very much. Q. In the light of that, sir, would you comment on Governor Stevenson's state- ment? the president. No, I have no comment. Q. Mr. President, I would like to ask a 9 Professor Owen Lattimore of Johns Hopkins University. 10 For the President's statement upon signing a bill approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, see Item 198. question along the line of Smitty's.11 De- spite all you have told us about your disin- clination to run again, there is a widespread feeling that you might be the 1952 nominee. I wonder if you would care to nail it down? the president. I have said no as plain as I can, and I shall keep right on saying that I am not a candidate. Q. That you wouldn't — haven't you told us, Mr. President, that you would not accept the president. I said I did not intend to try to get the nomination, and I did not intend to accept it if they gave it to me. Q. Mr. President, there have been re- newed reports that you might like to run for the Senate in Missouri. I saw it on the ticker today. the president. If I had wanted to run for the Senate for Missouri, I would have filed at the proper time. [13.] Q. Mr. President, to return to the Federal Trade Commission oil cartel report: There has been a considerable amount of speculation that the reason for its nondis- closure— that it has not been disclosed on the grounds that it affected national security — is that there were other less justifiable rea- sons for holding it back ? the president. It was classified in the first place by the Federal Trade Commission it- self, for national security reasons, but there are other reasons why it should be classified at this time. Q. But can you explain what they are ? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Can you say whether the president. I have no further com- ment on it at all. [14.] Q. Mr. President, I want to ask you a noncontroversial question. THE PRESIDENT. Shoot. Q. How do you plan to spend the Inde- pendence Day holiday? the president. Why, if Mrs. Truman is willing, she is coming down here. She was "Merriman Smith of the United Press Associa- tions. 55-672—66- -33 469 [i97] July 3 Public Papers of the Presidents up to see Margaret off today.12 We may go up on the "hill," but I don't think we will, because she has to stay close to a telephone on account of her mother's condition. Q. Go up on the hill, sir? the president. Shangri-La.13 Q. Oh. [Laughter] the president. I don't think we will, be- cause she has to stay where she can get in immediate touch with the family at home. [15.] Q. Mr. Truman, did you write a letter to Mr. Maury Maverick of San Anto- nio saying that the loyalist Democrats of Texas would be seated at the convention? the president. No comment. [16.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on General Eisenhower's desire that the Republican Convention be, as he put it, clean? the president. I am not running the Re- publican Convention, and I am just as glad as I can be that I am not a Republican. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, do you think the seem- ing disunity among the Republicans will be an advantage to the Democratic Party? the president. It usually is, of course. If history tends to repeat itself in that line. Q. How would you characterize the scene in Chicago today, Mr. President? [Laugh- ter] the president. I don't characterize it. It is none of my business. [17.] Q. Mr. President, will you by any chance make your preference known for the Democratic candidate sometime before the convention, or during the convention? the president. I will have a vote in the convention. I will express my opinion when I cast that vote. Q. Mr. President, that sort of leaves us in the dark again, sir. You have said pre- 12 Mrs. Truman accompanied her daughter to New York harbor where Margaret boarded the liner United States for a six-week tour of England, Scan- dinavia, and Austria. 13 The Presidential retreat in the Catoctin Moun- tains of Maryland. viously, sir, that you would not go to the convention until after the nomination for President is made. the president. That is correct. I have an alternate there who will carry out my wishes. Q. I see, sir. So we had best go talk to him? the president. Yes, you can talk to him all you want to. He is a free man. Q. Mr. President, is this a change in your position? Have you now definitely decided that you will express a preference at the time this vote comes along? the president. When my vote is cast, of course there will be a preference. The Mis- souri delegation is not one of these that goes to the convention with a yoke on. They are free agents. We don't work under the unit rule. Q. Just for purposes of covering that Mis- souri delegation, at what stage will you tell your alternate just what he is to do? the president. After the nominations are made. Q. That means, Mr. President, on the first ballot? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Mr. President, can we come back around that again? [Laughter] THE PRESIDENT. YeS. Q. You will tell your alternate what to do on the first ballot, is that right? the president. If he asks my advice, which he undoubtedly will, I will make a suggestion to him. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, isn't Missouri under the — you say it is not the president. It is not under a unit rule. Never works under the unit rule. Q. Who is the alternate? the president. I am not saying right now, because I don't want him disturbed. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, we met Mr. Gavin at Springfield and the president. He told me that he had been elected as an alternate to the conven- 470 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 3 [198] tion. There will be an alternate for every delegate — I don't know whether he is my alternate or not. Q. He told us that he was your alternate. the president. Did he? Then that is true then. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, will your alternate an- nounce what your instructions are to him? the president. No. He will cast a vote. Q. But you think we had better keep our eye on Mr. Gavin? the president. I would, if I were you. Q. Mr. President, this is just a technical question. At the time of the voting, will we know who your alternate is? the president. Well, I think so. I think you know now. Q. Name of Gavin. the president. His name is Tom Gavin from Kansas City. Q. Mr. President, let me put it — then you would not have any objection to the world knowing just what your alternate was to do? the president. Not at all. None what- ever. Q. Thank you. the president. He is a free agent. I haven't any strings on him except that he happens to be a friend of mine — political friend. [18.] Q. Judging by your speech yester- day,14 you evidendy don't think the Demo- crats have been in power too long? 14 See Item 194. THE PRESIDENT. On, no. Q. Would you enlarge on that? the president. No, no. I think I made that perfecdy clear, yesterday, that the peo- ple are best served by the party that is now in power, and I shall continue to preach that until the first Tuesday in November. [19.] Q. Mr. President, in your speech before the ADA,15 you predicted a Demo- cratic victory in November. Have recent events either strengthened or had any effect on your the president. It looks more like a Demo- cratic victory now, and the further we go it will look more like that all the time, and you won't be in the dark as much as you were in 1948. I think you will come to the same conclusion I do, as events unfold. Q. Mr. President, why do you say it looks more like that now? the president. Well, the Democrats are always doing the right thing. [Laughter] As I stated, I think, in the ADA speech, or it may have been the speech on the 29th of March, the Republicans usually help us out but we have to help ourselves a little, which we will proceed to do. Reporter: Mr. President, we have got to go for more paper. Thank you. [Laughter] note: President Truman's three hundred and tenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, July 3, 1952. 3 See Item 129. 198 . Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Approving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. July 3, 1952 I HAVE today signed H.J. Res. 430, ap- proving the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico, which was adopted by the people of Puerto Rico on March 3, 1952. I welcome this early approval by the Con- gress of the Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico, which I recom- mended in a special message on April 22, I952' The adoption of this constitution was authorized by the act of July 3, 1950. It is gratifying to me to be able to sign the act approving the Constitution of the Common- 471 [198] July 3 Public Papers of the Presidents wealth of Puerto Rico 2 years to the day after I approved the enabling legislation. The act of July 3, 1950, authorized the people of Puerto Rico to organize a repub- lican form of government pursuant to a constitution of their own choosing. That act, adopted by the Congress in the nature of a compact, became effective only when ac- cepted by the people of Puerto Rico in a referendum. On June 4, 195 1, the people of Puerto Rico voted by a large majority to accept the act of July 3, 1950, thereby reaffirming their union with the United States on the terms proposed by the Congress. Follow- ing the referendum, the voters of Puerto Rico elected delegates to a constitutional con- vention. The convention convened in San Juan on September 17, 1951, and concluded its deliberations on February 6, 1952. The constitution approved by the constitu- tional convention was submitted to the peo- ple of Puerto Rico in a referendum on March 3, 1952, and was approved by an over- whelming majority. On April 22, 1952, I transmitted the constitution to the Congress for approval in accordance with the provi- sions of the act of July 3, 1950. The consti- tution will now become effective upon the acceptance by the constitutional convention of the conditions of approval and the issu- ance of a proclamation by the Governor of Puerto Rico. H.J. Res. 430 is the culmination of a con* sistent policy of the United States to confer an ever-increasing measure of local self- government upon the people of Puerto Rico. It provides additional evidence of this Na- tion's adherence to the principle of self- determination and to the ideals of freedom and democracy. We take special pride in the fact that this constitution is the product of the people of Puerto Rico. When the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is proclaimed by the Governor, Puerto Rico will have a government fashioned by the people of Puerto Rico to meet their own needs, re- quirements, and aspirations. With the approval of H.J. Res. 430, the people of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico are about to enter into a relationship based on mutual consent and esteem. The Constitution of the Common- wealth of Puerto Rico and the procedures by which it has come into being are matters of which every American can be justly proud. They are in accordance with principles we proclaim as the right of free peoples every- where. July 3, 1952, should be a proud and happy day for all who have been associated in a great task. note: As enacted, H.J. Res. 430 is Public Law 447, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 327). The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is published in House Document 435 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). See also Item 104. 199 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Providing for Water Research and Development. July 4, 1952 I HAVE been happy to sign into law H.R. 6578 because it will permit the Government to move at once toward solution of one of the most urgent technical problems facing world civilization, which is the development of a process for large-scale purification of salt or brackish water. Secretary of the Interior Chapman saw the need for an additional source of pure water developing many years ago and for the last 5 years has been working on this matter with Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, Chair- man of the Senate Interior and Insular Af- fairs Committee, and Representative Clair Engle, Chairman of the House Subcommit- tee on Reclamation. A highly successful synthetic liquid fuels program has been de- veloped by the Department of the Interior under Secretary Chapman's guidance as the result of similar legislation. 472 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 6 [201] Secretary Chapman has advised that, with- in the limit of existing authorization his Department, and particularly the Bureau of Reclamation, has been assembling data on salt water distillation and keeping in touch with private industry regarding technical development of various processes. H.R. 6578 will permit full scale participa- tion by the Government with private indus- try in further development work. Of an authorization of approximately $400,000 annually for the next 5 years, approximately three-fourths will be devoted to research through contracts and grants. The research programs can be carried on by universities, research institutions, engi- neering and industrial firms, and possibly individuals who are qualified to do such work. Independent technical evaluations will assist in the formulation of future re- search and development programs. The in- tention is that within 5 years one or more usable processes should be developed for the distillation of salt and brackish water. Success of this project can be of tremen- dous benefit to our coastal communities, to our island possessions and to the whole world. note: As enacted on July 3, H.R. 6578 is Public Law 448, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 328). 200 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on Appropriations for Atomic Energy. July 5, 1952 My dear : I am informed that the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, as reported from confer- ence, contains a rider which, in effect, forbids the Atomic Energy Commission to start any specific construction project unless funds are available to complete the project; and that the amount of funds carried in the bill for the atomic energy program is less than half the amount I requested. This rider and reduction in funds, coupled together, would mean that the Atomic Energy Commission would not be able to fulfill military requirements for atomic weapons. I cannot believe that the Con- gress would wish to adjourn with our na- tional security jeopardized in this fashion. I urgently request that this rider be elimi- nated before the Congress completes its action on this bill. Sincerely yours, Harr'y S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Alben W. Barkley, President of the Senate, and to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives. For the statement by the President upon signing the Supplemental Appropriation Act on July 15, see Item 205. By the act the Congress appropriated $2,986,894,000 for the Atomic Energy Commis- sion, but the provision barring the AEC from start- ing any plant construction for which funds for completion were not available was retained in the final bill. 201 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Independent Offices Appropriation Act. July 6, 1952 I HAVE reluctantly signed H.R. 7072, the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1953, containing the so-called Thomas leave rider which prevents the accumulation of annual leave earned by Federal employees. Legislation by rider is a bad practice in any case. In this case, I believe it to be a serious mistake from the standpoint of the Gov- ernment, and most unfair from the stand- point of the Government's employees. In October 1951, after extensive hearings and study, the Congress approved a new leave act for Federal civilian personnel. This legislation drastically reduced the amounts 473 [20i ] July 6 Public Papers of the Presidents of annual leave granted to Federal employees outside of the postal field service who have less than 15 years of service. In enacting that legislation, the understanding was clear that in return for this severe reduction in annual leave, the then existing prohibition on accumulation of leave would be elimi- nated. This was done. But now the Congress by again prohibit- ing a reasonable accumulation of annual leave — within less than a year from the time it authorized accumulation of leave under these circumstances — has broken faith with a large body of Federal employees. This whittling away of employee rights is a poor way to encourage high morale and produc- tivity in the Federal service. I am in agreement with the general philos- ophy that Federal employees should have about the same working conditions and bene- fits as employees in progressive private com- panies. The present graduated scale of annual leave conforms to this philosophy. Private employees, however, are generally covered by unemployment insurance in case they lose their jobs, and in addition many of them receive liberal severance pay from their companies when they leave. Civilian em- ployees of the Federal Government have ab- solutely no unemployment insurance or sev- erance benefits. The least that we should do for them under these circumstances is to per- mit them to accumulate a reasonable portion of their annual leave as a protection in case they lose their jobs. The treatment here accorded to Federal civilian employees is in sharp contrast with that accorded to military personnel. With- in 24 hours of taking this restrictive action, the Congress also passed legislation granting both unemployment insurance and muster- ing out pay to junior officers and enlisted men leaving the armed services. The proponents of this rider refer to it as an economy measure. I am afraid that it is a pennywise and pound foolish economy measure. This rider puts a premium on tak- ing long vacations during a national emer- gency and penalizes the employee who sticks by the job. And if overtime work at pre- mium rates is required to make up for large numbers away on vacation, other restrictive provisions in several appropriations for the current fiscal year have cut down on the availability of funds for this purpose. No one can estimate the loss to the Government caused by lowered employee morale. I would not have signed the bill contain- ing this rider except for the fact that the bill appropriates funds essential for the continued operations of the Government. I hope the Congress will soon take corrective action to strike this unwise and unjust provision from the law. There were many Members of the Congress who opposed its inclusion in this bill. I hope they will soon be joined by many others who do not feel that it is necessary to use the Federal civil service as a political whipping boy. note: As enacted on July 5, H.R. 7072 is Public Law 455, 82a! Congress (66 Stat. 393). 202 Statement by the President on the Ground Observer Corps' "Operation Sky watch." July 12, 1952 STARTING Monday morning, in 27 States, civilian volunteers of the Ground Observer Corps will inaugurate "Operation Sky- watch." This is a commonsense precaution in which Americans can serve proudly and in which the fellow citizens of the watchers can derive satisfaction. The total policy and efforts of the United States and its allies are to prevent war. We shall never diminish our hopes and labors in this cause as long as no aggressors attack us. 474 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 13 [203] However, in this new age in which hostile forces are known to possess long-range bombers and atomic weapons, we cannot risk being caught unprepared to defend ourselves. We must have a trained force of skywatch- ers. If an enemy should try to attack us, we will need every minute and every second of warning that our sky watchers can give us. In that awful eventuality, the margin of warning may make a critical difference in the effectiveness of our air and ground de- fenses, and in the efficacy of our civil defense measures — it could save many lives and facilitate protection of vital services and production. Our greatest hopes for peace lie in being so strong and so well prepared that our enemies will not dare attack. Every citizen who cooperates in "Operation Skywatch" as well as in other defense activities, is helping prevent the war none of us wants to happen. note: See also Item 345. 203 Letter to Members of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security Requesting a Study of Foreign Trade Policies. July 13, 1952 [ Released July 13, 1952. Dated July 12, 1952 ] Dear ; I am writing you and the other members of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security to ask that the Board undertake an investigation of the foreign trade policies of the United States, particularly as they affect our efforts under the Mutual Security Pro- gram to achieve economic strength and solvency among the free nations. I am asking the Board to undertake this assignment because I fear that recent de- velopments affecting our trade policy may work at cross purposes with the basic objec- tives of the Mutual Security Program. We are working night and day to help build up the military and economic strength of friends and allies throughout the free world. We are spending very substantial sums of money to do this, to the end that our friends can grow strong enough to carry on without special aid from us. This is why we have urged upon them programs of in- creased production, trade expansion and tariff reduction, so that through world trade they can expand their dollar earnings and progressively reduce their dependence on our aid. Yet, at the same time, we find growing up in this country an increasing body of restric- tive laws attempting to further the interests of particular American producers by cutting down the imports of various foreign goods which can offer competition in American markets. The so-called "cheese" amend- ment to the Defense Production Act — en- acted despite a number of existing safe- guards— is a striking example of this trend. On the one hand we are insisting that our friends expand their own world trade; on the other hand we seem to be raising new barriers against imports from abroad. This poses a very real dilemma for our whole foreign policy. In my judgment, the first step toward clarifying this situation is for a responsible public group to study this problem and recommend to the President and the Con- gress the course we should follow in our trade policy. I can think of no group better qualified to do this than the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security. Representatives of business, labor, agriculture, education, and the public at large make up your mem- bership. Both major political parties are represented. Many of you have held other high positions of public trust. From long association with the Marshall Plan and now the Mutual Security Program, you are 475 [203] July 13 Public Papers of the Presidents familiar with the foreign policy of this coun- try and the problems of international relations. I want you to consider all aspects of our foreign trade policy as coming within the scope of your investigation. In particular, I think you should examine our tariff policy, with special reference to the expiration of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act in 1953; import restrictions, including quotas and customs procedures; agricultural policies af- fecting foreign trade; maritime laws and regulations concerning carriage of American goods; and what to do about the problems of domestic producers who may be injured by certain types of foreign commerce. I would also like to have your views on the role of international agencies in the trade field. It is extremely important that the whole problem be examined. The effect of rais- ing a tariff to protect a domestic industry, for example, should be evaluated in terms of the counter-restrictions which are raised against American exports abroad. Our to- bacco producers know what this kind of dis- crimination can mean, but I am sure that there are many others who are not fully aware of it. Neither, I feel, have we really thought through the full implications of our efforts to prevent the rest of the free world from trading with the Iron Curtain bloc. Having insisted that these countries severely restrict their trade in one direction, what can we suggest to replace it? These are the kinds of problems which I want you to consider. Mr. Gordon Gray made a significant contribution in his study of foreign economic policies in 1950. More recently, the President's Materials Policy Commission, under the leadership of Mr. William S. Paley, has emphasized our na- tional dependence on overseas sources of raw materials. Both of these studies, how- ever, were concerned primarily with other problems and touched rather incidentally upon trade policy. In order that your recommendations may have the widest possible influence, I believe that you should proceed on an independent basis, not subordinated in any way to the Government agencies concerned. I recog- nize that the Director for Mutual Security is, by statute, Chairman of your Board. However, Mr. Harriman has suggested, and I agree, that he not sit with the Board for the purposes of this undertaking. I am asking all the departments and agen- cies concerned with trade matters to give you full cooperation and whatever assistance you may desire in carrying this work forward. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the following members of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security: Sarah G. Blanding, President, Vassar College, James B. Carey, Secretary- Treasurer, Congress of Industrial Organizations, Jonathan W. Daniels, Editor, Raleigh, N.C., News and Observer, Robert H. Hinckley, Vice President, American Broadcasting Company, Eric A. Johnston, President, Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., Allan B. Kline, President, American Farm Bureau Federation, Orin Lehman, New York City, A. E. Lyon, Executive Secretary, Railway Labor Executives Association, George H. Mead, Chairman of the Board, The Mead Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, George Meany, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fed- eration of Labor, Herschel D. Newsom, Master, Na- tional Grange, and James G. Patton, President, National Farmers Union. The Director for Mutual Security, Averell Harri- man, was ex officio Chairman of the Public Ad- visory Board, but for purposes of the special study, the Board named as Acting Chairman Daniel W. Bell, president, American Security and Trust Com- pany, Washington, D.C. The Board was established by the Mutual Security Act of 1 95 1 as the successor to the Public Advisory Board created in the European Recovery Act of 1948. The Board's report, entitled "A Trade and Tariff Policy in the National Interest" (Government Print- ing Office, 1953, 78 pp.) j was transmitted to Presi- dent Eisenhower on February 24, 1953. For the President's statement in response to Gor- don Gray's report on foreign economic policy, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 282. For the President's letter in response to the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission, see Item 179, this volume. 476 Harry S. Truman, 7952 204 Statement by the President Upon Signing the "Fair-Trade Laws" Bill. July 14, 1952 July 14 [204] I HAVE today signed H.R. 5767, "To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act with respect to certain contracts and agree- ments which establish minimum or stipu- lated resale prices and which' are extended by State law to persons who are not parties to such contracts and agreements, and for certain other purposes." This act has to do with the so-called fair- trade laws of 45 States. Under these State fair-trade laws, a manufacturer of a trade- mark or brand name product can, if he wishes, fix the price at which his product may be sold. He does this by making resale price contracts with distributors of his prod- ucts— and under the State laws, if he makes such a contract with one retailer, it applies to all others in the State whether or not they have agreed to such a contract. This means that every retailer in a given State may be required to sell "fair-traded" products at the same price, and no retailer may attempt to attract customers by reducing his prices on any such product. Such price-fixing arrangements would, of course, be illegal under the Federal antitrust laws, insofar as they applied to interstate commerce, unless special legislative exemp- tion were given to them. The Miller- Ty dings Act of 1937 was passed to grant such exemption, but recent decisions of the Supreme Court have held, among other things, that the Miller-Tydings Act did not sanction the so-called "nonsigner" clauses of the State laws, under which retailers are bound by the resale prices set by manufac- turers, even if they have not agreed to be so bound. The purpose of H.R. 5767 is to exempt these "nonsigner" clauses from the Federal antitrust laws, and to extend the exemption for State fair-trade laws in certain other ways. The central question posed by this act, therefore, is whether the limitations on com- petition that are established under the State fair-trade laws should be given the sanction of Federal law. The main reason given for enacting the State fair-trade laws is to prevent some mer- chants from selling branded items at very low prices (often below cost) in order to drive other merchants out of business, or in order to attract customers who are then sold other items on which high prices are charged. There is no doubt that such prac- tices exist, and that the fair-trade laws pre- vent them to some extent. This is the rea- son that the State fair-trade laws, and H.R. 5767, have such strong support among small and independent businessmen — particularly druggists, and hardware and appliance mer- chants— who fear they cannot survive against such unfair competitive practices. At the same time, there is no doubt that the fair-trade laws also have the effect of re- moving some competitive forces which other- wise would operate to help keep prices down. Under the fair-trade laws, retailers cannot compete with each other by reducing the price of branded products, even where such reductions may reflect greater efficiency by one retailer as compared to another. Fur- thermore, the operation of the fair-trade laws in the past has on occasion been used as a cloak for unlawful conspiracies among re- tailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers — conspiracies which have gone much further in eliminating competition than the fair- trade laws actually permit. These are the reasons why so many economists, lawyers, and consumer groups oppose fair-trade laws, on the grounds that they eliminate too much of the vigorous, effective competition among sellers which should exist in our free enter- prise system. I believe that the effects of this legislation have been somewhat exaggerated by both sides. I do not believe that the fair-trade 55-672r— 66 477 [204] July 14 Public Papers of the Presidents laws are as harmful to competition as some have asserted. There are and will be strong competitive forces among manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers even with the fair- trade laws in effect. At the same time, it is clear that fair-trade laws are no cure-all for the problems of small retailers. While the fair-trade laws protect him against some types of cutthroat com- petition, the local independent merchant will continue to have to offer better and more convenient service, and to sell at reason- able prices, if he is to survive against the legitimate and keen competition of such mod- ern advances in the retail field as the super- market, the mail-order house, and the branch department store. I have signed this act because it does have value in eliminating certain unfair competi- tive practices, and thereby will help small businessmen to stay in business — which I be- lieve is a healthy thing for our economy and our society. At the same time, I believe the fair-trade laws do remove some competitive forces which should be retained in our progressive free enterprise economy. Accordingly, I believe we have not yet found the best solution for the problem this legislation is intended to solve, and I urge the Congress to make a thorough investi- gation of this field, including not only the fair-trade laws, but the related problems of price discrimination and antitrust policy. I note that in the course of the debate on H.R. 5767, Senator Humphrey indicated that he would propose an investigation of this field at the next session of Congress. I hope very much that such an investigation will be undertaken, so that we may have a fresh and thorough review of the means for maintain- ing fair and vigorous competition in our economy. note: As enacted, H.R. 5767 is Public Law 542, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 631). 205 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Supplemental Appropriation Act. July 15, 1952 I HAVE today signed H.R. 8370, the Sup- plemental Appropriation Act of 1953. This is an omnibus measure, appropriating funds for a great many agencies. In a number of ways this act falls so far short of what is required in the national interest that I feel I cannot let it go without comment. Fortunately, some of the most drastic and unwise slashes proposed were averted by the Congress before the act was finally passed. I have been particularly gratified by the determined stand of many Members of the Congress in the days before adjournment, which saved the vital expan- sion of our atomic energy facilities from disastrous curtailment. Nevertheless, the act contains a number of appropriation cuts which will seriously hamper our total defense effort. In particu- lar, I am deeply concerned by the slashes in funds for civil defense, for anti-inflation controls, and for our mutual security program. In the case of civil defense, the Congress reduced the funds requested by more than 90 percent. This repeats the gross error of the last 2 years by postponing once again the construction of key shelters in our most vul- nerable cities and the stockpiling of adequate medical and other supplies to save and sustain life in case of attack. The appropriation for the economic sta- bilization agencies is another case of reckless slashing without regard to the consequences to our people or to defense. By providing only a little more than half the funds re- quested— and required — to administer price, wage, and rent controls as effectively as they should be administered, the Congress showed a lack of concern for the consumer, 478 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 15 [205] for business, labor, agriculture, and other groups affected by the controls, and for the cost of national defense. To understand what poor economy this appropriation cut represents, we need only look at some comparative figures. In cut- ting the stabilization funds for the Economic Stabilization Agency from the $103,000,000 I requested to $60,000,000, the Congress presumably "saved" $43,000,000. But if the cost of living should go up only 1 percent as a consequence of our not having sufficient funds to administer the controls as effec- tively as possible, the cost to the American public would be nearly 47 times $43,000,- 000 — or $2 billion. As for the mutual security program, the Congress has cut almost 25 percent from the program which I recommended last February. The passage of the mutual security legis- lation and the appropriations for it included in this act are a reaffirmation of one of the cardinal points of our foreign policy — the achievement of peace through helping to build the collective strength of the free world to resist aggression from without and sub- version from within. I am gratified that the Congress had the wisdom to reject many of the crippling amendments which were proposed by those who sought to clothe their allout opposition to this program with devious and specious devices to destroy it. Nevertheless, it is clear that the amount of this appropriation is inadequate and was ar- rived at in an effort to present the American people in an election year with the illusion of economy rather than with the reality of an adequate collective defense. Slashes in funds have been particularly severe in the programs for Europe and for the Indian subcontinent. Our contributions towards building up the forces of our North Atlantic Treaty partners are but a small portion of the contributions made by our allies, but ours is a critical por- tion. By virtue of the cuts made by the Congress in the military equipment program and in defense support, the European forces will have less equipment and consequently less fire power and less air cover. As a re- sult our own forces in Europe become both more vulnerable and less effective in the defense tasks they might be called on to perform. I think the American people should clearly understand that every dollar which has been cut from the amount re- quested represents a loss of much more than a dollar's worth of strength for the free world. There has been an equally shortsighted reduction in funds available for the point 4 program in the new nations of South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Burma, and In- donesia. The original program recom- mended for this area amounted to $178 million. The amount finally appropriated was slightly over $67 million, or a slash of more than 60 percent. Similar slashes were made in our contribution for technical as- sistance through the United Nations. This is an exceedingly dangerous thing for the Congress to have done. Take India for example. India, the largest democratic na- tion in all Asia, is now engaged in a tremen- dous effort of her own to build up her economy and living standards — to show that democratic government and democratic methods can succeed in curing the poverty, the hunger, and the misery that afflict so much of Asia. Every dollar of the aid rec- ommended was to back up the concrete and constructive efforts that the Indians them- selves are making. Upon these efforts may well depend the whole future course of free- dom and democracy on the continent of Asia. The cut for these Asian countries is even more cruel because it comes at a time when they are facing severe economic strain — when even Pakistan, normally a country of grain surplus, is facing a grain shortage. The American people should carefully note the strange fact that prominent among the proponents of this cut were some of the very individuals who have shouted loudest that we are not doing enough in Asia. The cuts in our mutual security program 479 [205] July 15 Public Papers of the Presidents have allegedly been made in the name of economy. To me, this is the falsest kind of economy. I am convinced that such cuts will in the long run cost us much more. I am equally convinced that the Congress it- self will eventually recognize the necessity of making additional funds available during this fiscal year to meet the needs of this program. note: As enacted, H.R. 8370 is Public Law 547, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 637). 206 Statement by the President Upon Signing an Amendment to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act. July 16, 1952 I HAVE today signed S. 1310, a bill relating to the prevention of major disasters in coal mines. This measure is a significant step in the direction of preventing the appalling toll of death and injury to miners in underground mines. These totally unnecessary and pre- ventable accidents result in grief-stricken families as well as a shocking loss and waste of skilled manpower. Under Public Law 49, 77th Congress, the Secretary of the Interior has been authorized to inspect coal mines to the end of making them safer places in which to work. In re- porting on their inspections of coal mines, the Federal coal mine inspectors have recom- mended measures to correct unsafe condi- tions and practices, but there has been no authority to enforce these recommendations. Disaster has, in many instances, followed in the wake of repeated and unheeded warnings of impending danger. S. 13 10 will, in part, correct this situation. The measure seeks to help prevent major disasters in coal mines from five causes — explosion, fire, inundation, man-trip, or man- hoist accidents. Nevertheless, the legisla- tion falls short of the recommendation I submitted to the Congress to meet the urgent problems in this field. In particular, the bill has the following deficiencies: 1. Coal mines in which less than 15 per- sons are regularly employed underground are exempted from compliance with any of the mine safety provisions regardless of whether a major disaster might be imminent. This exempts a large group of mines, many of which are hazardous and need a great deal of safety improvement. Inspections of these mines will continue under the earlier statute, but compliance with recommenda- tions of the Federal inspectors will be on a purely voluntary basis. 2. The provisions of the legislation are di- rected solely toward the prevention of major disasters from the five causes mentioned heretofore. Such disasters accounted for only approximately 7 percent of the coal mine fatalities during the past 20 years. The broad phase of accident prevention in general remains the responsibility of the States in which coal is mined, despite the record to date indicating either the inability or unwillingness of the States to meet this responsibility. 3. The legislation contains several exemp- tions to the safety provisions particularly with regard to replacement of dangerous elec- trical equipment and faulty ventilation sys- tems which have been the causes of most re- cent major disasters. I am advised that these exemptions were provided to avoid any economic impact on the coal mining indus- try, but they are so worded that the unsafe conditions and practices could continue for years before the mines would be required to comply with the law. 4. The measure contains complex proce- dural provisions relating to inspections, ap- peals, and the postponing of orders which I believe will make it exceedingly difficult if not impossible for those charged with the ad- ministration of the act to carry out an effec- tive enforcement program. I believe that it 480 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 16 [207] is possible to draft simpler and more effec- tive procedural provisions which would not adversely affect the rights of any of the par- ties concerned with the prevention of mine injuries and deaths. 5. The measure vests the mine safety en- forcement functions directly in the Director of the Bureau of Mines. This violates the principle now established for most execu- tive departments that functions should be vested in the department head in order to provide the flexibility of organization and clear lines of authority and accountability essential for effective administration. I consider it my duty to point out these de- fects so that the public will not be misled into believing that this legislation is a broad gauge accident prevention measure. We will do our very best to prevent mining disasters with the authority granted in this bill but the Congress eventually will have to meet its responsibility for enacting legislation which provides tools fully adequate to prevent the great loss of life and the thousands of crip- pling injuries due to mine accidents. note: As enacted, S. 13 10 is Public Law 552, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 692). 207 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to Payments to Certain Employees of the House of Representatives. July 16, 1952 I HAVE signed H.J. Res. 446, relating to the continuance on the payrolls of certain employees in cases of death or resignation of Members of the House of Representatives, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners. While I have no objection to the purposes for which I understand this joint resolution was enacted, there is one provision in the joint resolution which does not appear to be necessary to accomplish these purposes, and which I believe may give rise to serious dif- ficulties in the future unless it is corrected by the Congress. Section 2 of the joint resolution allows certain service in the employ of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau to be credited for retirement purposes under the civil service retirement law. I am informed that the purpose of the Congress in enacting this section was to allow credit for past service rendered by certain individuals formerly in the employ of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau. I assume that the Congress gave due con- sideration to the circumstances involved in the cases of these particular individuals and found the facts to justify extending these benefits to them. However, the section as drafted may be construed to permit any per- son who is now or hereafter covered by the Civil Service Retirement Act to get credit under that act for any service heretofore or hereafter rendered in the employ of the Pan American Sanitary Bureau. The Pan American Sanitary Bureau is an interna- tional organization. There is no more rea- son for extending to its employees benefits of the civil service retirement laws of the United States, than there is in the case of other international organizations. I do not believe that the Congress, by enacting this joint resolution, meant to start down the path of extending such benefits to the employees of all international organiza- tions. Consequendy, I hope that the Con- gress will act prompdy at its next session to correct this defect in the present joint resolution. note: As enacted on July 15, H.J. Res. 446 is Public Law 548, 820! Congress (66 Stat. 662). 481 [208] July 17 Public Papers of the Presidents 208 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill Relating to Employees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Company. July 17, 1952 I HAVE withheld my approval from S. 1 27 1, "To permit employees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Company to appeal decisions under the Fed- eral Employees' Compensation Act to the Employees' Compensation Appeals Board." This proposal has a worthy objective. Equality of treatment demands that em- ployees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Company, who are ag- grieved by final decisions upon their claims for compensation, should have the right of appeal enjoyed by other employees of the Government. Unfortunately, the bill before me is se- riously faulty. The Executive Branch ad- vised the Congress of four defects in the bill and set forth recommendations for the overcoming of the defects. Why these remedial recommendations were not adopted is not shown in the record. I am con- vinced that they should have been adopted in the interest of avoiding needless costs, administrative burdens, and procedural encumbrances. It has been suggested that the objectives of this bill may be legally capable of accom- plishment by Executive Order without the need of legislation. I shall see that this is examined at once. Harry S. Truman note: On September 8, the President signed Execu- tive Order 10394 "Suspending Certain Statutory Provisions Relating to Employment in the Canal Zone" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 209 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bills Relating to the Delaware River Port Authority. July 17, 1952 I HAVE today approved H.R. 8315 and H.R. 8316, proposals involving the creation of a Delaware River Port Authority to pro- vide for the development of the Philadelphia- Camden port area. I believe that immediate steps are neces- sary if the Philadelphia-Camden area is to develop as it should. Delay in the creation of the Port Authority would stifle the growth of and strike a serious blow at the prosperity of the entire area. I have therefore given my approval to these measures despite the grave doubts which I entertain concerning one provision they include. These measures provide that the revenues resulting from tolls levied on users of high- way bridges and highway tunnels may be used for the financing of other projects such as airports, docks, and warehouses. The result is that the motorist who is forced by circumstances to use one of the bridges or tunnels operated by the Port Authority may pay not only for his use of the bridge or tun- nel but also for the financing of other local development projects. This I believe to be particularly unfair to the interstate traveler who derives no substantial benefit from the local facilities which he is compelled to sup- port through toll charges levied against him. The use of toll charges to support other facilities could create substantial barriers to the free flow of interstate commerce, if the local development authorities operating in- terstate bridges or tunnels resorted to high toll charges and thus compelled interstate travelers to subsidize other local projects. In general, I believe local improvements should be financed by fees imposed on those who benefit most directly from such develop- ments or by taxation. Interstate bridges and tunnels can properly be financed by tolls im- posed on their users. In this connection, I 482 Harry S. Truman, J952 July 18 [210] see no objection to the pooling of closely related river crossings for financing purposes or, in exceptional circumstances, to extending the amortization period for interstate bridges beyond the usual 30 years. But it seems to me to be a very doubtful practice to require the motorist to pay, through bridge or tunnel tolls, part or all of the cost of other local facilities of which he may make no use at all. I therefore urge the Congress, at its earliest opportunity, to ex- amine the rights reserved to it by this legis- lation with a view to taking action which will protect the interstate motorist from toll charges which are higher than necessary to finance the bridges and tunnels he uses. note: As enacted, H.R. 8315 is Public Law 573, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 738); H.R. 8316 is Public Law 574, 82a! Congress (66 Stat. 747). 210 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Relating to Agricultural Price Supports. July 18, 1952 I HAVE signed H.R. 8122, a measure which takes important steps in strengthening agri- cultural price supports. The new law sets aside the sliding scale for the 1953 and 1954 crop years, and delays the shift from the old method of computing parity to a new method insofar as four basic commodities are con- cerned. In addition, the law provides price support for extra long staple cotton on a specified basis comparable to that provided for upland cotton. The principle of the sliding scale is that the volume of farm production can and should be adjusted downward by dropping the level of support provided farmers. As I have stated repeatedly, this is neither a workable method of adjustment nor a fair one. It would provide farmers with the least protection when protection is most needed. For example, at the present time, if farmers are successful in meeting national requests for bumper production, they would face the prospect of driving their prices down through action of the sliding scale. What they need for high production is assurance that hard work will be rewarded by stable prices, not declining prices. For this rea- son, I urged last January, in my annual mes- sages to the Congress, that the sliding scale provisions of the present agricultural legis- lation be repealed. While the new law falls short of outright repeal, it will have the de- sirable effect of providing reliable price sup- port over the next 2 crop years. This action should help greatly to assure high farm production. Moreover, it also gives assurance to consumers that the supply of food and fiber will be as abundant as pos- sible. An abundant supply, of course, is one of the chief ingredients in stabilizing prices at fair levels, especially during a period of national emergency. The new law also extends for 2 addi- tional years the requirements that the effec- tive parity price for the six basic commodi- ties shall be the parity price computed under the old or new parity formula, whichever is higher. This change would affect only four of the six basic commodities — corn, wheat, cotton, and peanuts — since the new price is higher for rice and tobacco. There is considerable merit in delaying the shift from the old to the new parity dur- ing the present emergency. When the Agri- cultural Act of 1949 was approved in October 1949, there appeared to be a fair possibility that the gap between the old and new parity prices for wheat, corn, cotton, and peanuts would narrow during the 4-year transition period then specified. This did not mate- rialize, due largely to the emergency which arose with the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Old parity prices for wheat, corn, cotton, and peanuts have been higher than the new parity prices all during the period since 1950. It also appears fairly certain that by the end of 1953 old parity prices will still be well above the new parity prices 483 [210] July 18 Public Papers of the Presidents for wheat, corn, and peanuts. Under these circumstances, an additional period for readjustment is desirable before the new parity takes sole effect. This in- volves postponement, but by no means aban- donment, of the commendable objective of a single parity standard as contemplated by the 1949 act. The new law is a valuable addition to the agricultural legislation which has been so important in maintaining a strong and stable farm economy and which has contributed so markedly to a much needed increase in the American standard of rural living. note: As enacted on July 17, H.R. 8122 is Public Law 585, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 758). 211 Statement by the President Upon Signing Bill Amending the Merchant Marine Act. July 18, 1952 I HAVE signed S. 241, a bill which amends the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 and which has come to be known popularly as the "long-range shipping bill." In taking this action, I want to correct two mistaken im- pressions which have grown up concerning the bill in the course of its consideration by the Congress over the past several years. In the first place, this bill is not a long- range shipping bill. It fails to develop a long-range basis for the future relationships between the Government and the maritime industry in the United States. Second, while the bill contains a number of con- structive and workable provisions which will be immediately useful, it does not represent the balanced and thorough going adjustment of the 1936 act which is needed to meet present conditions in the maritime industry. There are also two specific matters upon which I wish to comment with respect to this measure. In a very real sense the bill establishes a new national policy governing the assistance afforded by the Government to ship operators in the construction of ves- sels. Under the 1936 act, construction sub- sidy was available only for vessels operating on essential trade routes. The new policy apparently will be to permit the Government to extend assistance on construction to any vessels engaged in foreign trade and regard- less of whether used on an essential trade route. The bill purports to establish stand- ards which will prevent either abuse of this provision or its use in a manner which is not wholly consistent with national responsibili- ties to the shipping industry. I do not believe that the standards incor- porated in S. 241 with respect to the new construction subsidy policy are as clear and as meaningful as their proponents have con- tended. If the Maritime Board and the Secretary of Commerce find that the legis- lation does not provide them with ample authority for the exercise of executive dis- cretion to grant only such construction assist- ance as is clearly in the national interest, I am sure that they will report the fact promptly. It will then be up to the Congress to deal with this problem. The other matter which I should like to mention specifically is my regret that final action on this bill, which was taken in the closing days of the Congress, resulted in a failure to deal in any constructive way with the tax issues now existing in the maritime field. On many occasions I have expressed my opposition to the principle of using tax advantages as a permanent means of ex- tending Government assistance to individual industries. In the maritime field, because of the provisions of the 1936 act and the changes which have taken place in our tax laws since 1936, the tax benefits now accru- ing to the maritime industry are far greater than those originally contemplated. In my judgment, they are also completely out of focus with the principles which underlay the original incorporation of certain tax benefits in the 1936 act. 484 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 18 [212] I regret very much the failure of the Congress to deal with this tax issue, particu- larly in view of the fact that the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce, at my re- quest and with my concurrence, made avail- able to the Congress extensive information dealing with the tax problem. The conference committee indicated its desire to give this issue further study and its desire to have the affected departments pre- pare further tax studies for its use. I have been assured by the Chairman of the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and the Chairman of the subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Commit- tee which handled this bill that neither Committee will allow the tax issue to go long unconsidered and that legislation dealing with the tax issues will be taken up when the Congress reconvenes. In order to assure that there will be no failure on the part of the executive branch, I shall direct both the Secretary of the Treas- ury and the Secretary of Commerce to revise and to bring up to date their studies of mari- time tax benefits and to present recommenda- tions to the Congress to provide a basis at least for reducing, and preferably for elim- inating altogether, the use of tax benefits as a substitute for whatever amount of direct assistance the Federal Government should undertake to provide to keep our merchant marine strong, economically healthy, and adaptable to the needs of our defense and commerce. note: As enacted on July 17, S. 241 is Public Law 586, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 760). See also Items 225, 226. 212 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill for the Establishment of a Veterans Administration Facility at Fort Logan, Colorado. July 18, 1952 I HAVE withheld approval of S. 2584, "To provide for the establishment of a Veterans' Administration facility at Fort Logan, Colo- rado." I have taken this action because I believe that the establishment of additional Veterans' Administration domiciliary facilities would not be warranted at this time. The wartime-constructed Army hospital at Fort Logan was acquired by the Veterans' Administration in 1946 for temporary use pending the construction of a new hospital in Denver. In September 195 1, the Denver hospital was completed and the Fort Logan hospital was vacated by the Veterans' Ad- ministration. At that time careful consider- ation was given to various proposals for the use of this facility including its use as a Veterans' Administration domiciliary home. I felt then, and I still feel, that it would be undesirable to increase the size of the Vet- erans' Administration domiciliary program at this time. The service-connected medical needs of veterans in the Colorado area are now being adequately met by the new Denver hospital opened in September 1951 and by other facil- ities in that area. After the last war, the Veterans' Adminis- tration obtained from the Army and Navy a considerable number of wartime-constructed hospitals for temporary use while its per- manent hospital construction program was underway. As this construction program ap- proaches completion, more and more of these temporary hospitals are no longer required by the Veterans' Administration. Naturally there are efforts, as in this case, to continue Veterans' Administration operation of these temporary facilities. Approval of these ef- forts by either administrative or legislative action would be unwise and costly. If facil- ities such as Fort Logan can be utilized eco- nomically for high priority Federal projects or programs, they should be so used. How- ever, there is no reasonable justification for 485 [212] July 18 Public Papers of the Presidents operating a facility just because it is owned by the Federal Government. Such action would not be consistent with the cutbacks in badly needed, high priority programs which the Congress has insisted be accomplished. For these reasons, I have withheld my ap- proval of S. 2584. Harry S. Truman 213 Statement by the President Upon Signing the Social Security Act Amendments. July 18, 1952 I HAVE today signed H.R. 7800, the So- cial Security Act Amendments of 1952. This is an important landmark in the progress of our social security system. The new law increases old-age and sur- vivors insurance benefits by an average of $6 per month. The new law also makes cer- tain increases in the minimum benefits under the Railroad Retirement System. These in- creases become effective for the month of September and will add to the incomes of more than 4.5 million people now drawing benefits from these insurance systems. Both systems are further improved by in- creasing from $50 to $75 per month the amount which a person can earn without losing his insurance benefit. In addition, members of the Armed Forces serving from 1947 through 1953, will now receive the same employment credit under the old-age and survivors insurance system that was granted servicemen during World War II. The new law also increases by $250 mil- lion per year, the amount of the Federal con- tribution to the States for public assistance. This will make it possible for the States to in- crease assistance payments to the 5 million dependent children and aged, blind, and dis- abled citizens now receiving State help to meet their minimum financial needs. In- creases will amount to about $3 per month for dependent children, and $5 per month for the rest, provided that the States use all the new Federal funds to increase total pay- ments to the needy individuals. It is hoped and expected that this will be done. The major features of this new law follow the recommendations which I made to the Congress last January. The Congress is to be congratulated for this prompt and effec- tive action to strengthen the social security laws and to ease the pressure of living costs for so many millions of Americans. A large share of the credit for this timely and constructive measure is due to Chair- man Doughton of the House Ways and Means Committee, the sponsor of the great Social Security Act of 1935 and of every major improvement in social security since that time. Chairman Doughton has an- nounced his retirement from the House of Representatives after 40 years of service. H.R. 7800 is his last legislative achievement for the American people and I am sure they will join with me in honoring him for it. In this new law, otherwise so generally desirable, there is one drawback which I feel requires comment at this time. I deeply regret that the Congress failed to take proper action to preserve the old-age and survivors insurance rights of persons who become per- manently and totally disabled. There is a provision in the act which purports, begin- ning July 1, 1953, to preserve an individual's rights in the event of disability — but, unfor- tunately, the act also includes a sentence, saying that this provision shall cease to be in effect on June 30, 1953. The net effect of this is that the provision will expire on the day before it can go into effect. Thus, in the act I have just signed, the Congress takes away with one hand what it appears to give with the other. The provision thus nullified by this ex- traordinary effective date arrangement, is analogous to the waiver of premiums in private insurance policies. This provision would permit aged persons whose disability 486 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 18 [213] has forced them into early retirement to have their benefits recomputed so that lost time due to their disability would not count against them. No fair-minded individual denies the jus- tice of such a provision. No procedures would be involved that are not already a part of the daily routine of scores of private life insurance companies. No administra- tive methods would be required that are not already used by any one of several Govern- ment disability programs for veterans, rail- road employees, and Government workers, including Members of the Congress them- selves. The way in which this provision was, in effect, defeated is such a revealing example of how the Republicans dance when a well- heeled lobbyist pipes a tune that I think it warrants being brought to the particular attention of the American people in this election year. The disability provision was recommended to the House of Representatives by its Com- mittee on Ways and Means. On May 19th, the bill was taken up on the House floor under a motion to suspend the rules, a pro- cedure which permits quick action but re- quires a two-thirds favorable vote to pass a bill. This procedure was agreed to because no one foresaw any opposition to this sen- sible and reasonable piece of legislation. At that point, the Washington lobbyist for the American Medical Association got the notion that here was a chance for him to attack what he chose to call a "socialistic" proposal. So he sent a letter or telegram to every Member of the House. There had been no other opposition to H.R. 7800. There was, as Chairman Doughton stated on the floor of the House, "no more social- ized medicine in . . . [this provision] . . . than there is frost in the sun." Yet, when the House voted on the measure, nearly 70 percent of the Republicans were against the bill. A great majority of the Democrats, to their credit, stood firm and voted for the bill, but with the solid Republican opposition, they were unable to muster the necessary two-thirds vote. After that defeat, the bill was sent back to the Ways and Means Committee. Then the story began to get around as to what had really happened. A great number of Re- publicans apparently decided they couldn't take the heat when they got caught, for when the bill was again reported and again brought to the floor, only 12 percent of the Republicans persisted in their opposition. On this second try, the bill passed the House, on June 17th. But the American Medical Association lobby had accomplished what it wanted just the same. For the month's delay in the House had created such a situation that the Senate could act before adjournment only by dispensing with hear- ings. It was then the strategy of the Amer- ican Medical Association to put up a great demand to be heard on the disability pro- vision. Faced with the Association's insist- ence, the Senate committee decided to drop this provision rather than schedule hearings which might consume the time before ad- journment and thus lose the chance for Sen- ate action on the bill. The net result of the medical lobby's ma- neuvering was the impairment of insurance protection for millions of disabled Ameri- cans. What the lobby could not engineer outright, it won by delay. And be it noted that this victory for the lobby, at the people's expense, was accomplished by a great major- ity of the Republicans in the House. They were perfectly willing to deny to millions of Americans the benefits provided by this bill in order to satisfy the groundless whim of a special interest lobby — a lobby that pur- ports to speak for, but surely fails to repre- sent, the great medical profession in the United States. I earnestly hope that the Congress next year will override the foolish objections of the medical lobby and put a proper disability provision in the law. The new law as finally adopted omits one other good provision which was passed by 487 [213] July 18 Public Papers of the Presidents the House. I refer to a section of the House bill which would have permitted State and local government employees who are covered by retirement systems, to hold a referendum as to whether they wish to come under the Federal insurance program. There is a widespread desire on the part of such em- ployees to obtain the protection of the insur- ance program. I hope the Congress will enact this much-needed provision next year also. In addition, I hope the Congress at that time will also consider the entire question of further extending and liberalizing the Social Security Act as a whole. note: As enacted, H.R. 7800 is Public Law 590, 82c! Congress (66 Stat. 767). 214 Memorandum of Disapproval of Bill Authorizing the Postmaster General To Lease Quarters for Post Office Purposes. July 19, 1952 I AM withholding my approval of H.R. 6839, "To modify and extend the authority of the Postmaster General to lease quarters for post-office purposes." Although H.R. 6839 would grant desirable authority to the Postmaster General to enter into lease-purchase agreements for acquiring space to be used for postal purposes, it con- tains a provision which would infringe upon the functions of the Executive branch to such an extent that I feel I cannot give my ap- proval. Section 8 of H.R. 6839 requires that every lease-purchase agreement negotiated under authority of this bill receive the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and the House and Senate Committees on Public Works. I do not dispute the right of the Congress and its Committees to take an interest in real estate transactions made by the Executive Branch of the Government, but I do question the propriety and wisdom of giving Com- mittees veto power over executive functions authorized by the Congress to be carried out by executive agencies. Full information re- garding any property transaction has in the past, and will in the future, be made avail- able to the Committees of Congress. I hope that the Congress will, at its next session, give further consideration to legisla- tion to accomplish the purposes of H.R. 6839, and that it will frame legislation free from the difficulties which impel me to with- hold my approval from this measure. Harry S. Truman 215 Special Message to the Congress: The President's Midyear Economic Report. July 19, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: This Midyear Economic Report appears at a time when the 82nd Congress has ad- journed, and when the Congress may not again be in session until January 1953. For this reason, the Report does not contain spe- cific legislative recommendations. It is lim- ited to a broad view of the Nation's economy, its current condition of strength, and its prospects and problems for the future. It is highly desirable that these matters now be placed before the American people and their representatives. During the com- ing months, issues of economic policy will be widely discussed throughout the land. Nobody can expect, and it would not be desirable, that everybody view these prob- lems in the same light or propose identical 488 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 19 [215] solutions. The strength of our free institu- tions rests upon free debate and free deci- sions by the people. But in these trying times, while some issues will continue to divide us, we must seek out and stress those things which hold us together. We face a common danger in the world — the communist menace. We share common aspirations for our domestic economy — sta- bility, justice, and advancing prosperity. There are certain facts that we should all know and accept. These facts converge upon one inescapable conclusion: America has the economic strength, while fulfilling its domestic responsibilities, to build with other free nations the conditions for a more en- during peace. America cannot afford to relax in this effort, in the false fear that we do not have the strength to carry through. This country, from the time of its forma- tion, has passed successfully through many trying times. This success has not come through doubting our own ability. It has not been achieved by trying to get by with lower exertions and costs than were necessary to do the job. Yet every day one hears some expression of opinion that our security efforts are weak- ening us at home, and that we must reduce them in order to save ourselves. Many who hold this view are entirely sincere. The trouble is that they have not examined all the facts. I am confident that, when they do so, they will join in the realization that danger lies in believing wrongly that we are weak. Our strength commences with knowing that we are strong — and becoming stronger. The facts reveal beyond question that the security programs now being undertaken are not even threatening — much less deplet- ing or impairing — the strength of our do- mestic economy. Despite the burden of these programs — and they are a real bur- den— our business system has been doing better and our people have been living better than ever before. Our just pride in these facts should be tempered by the sobering realization that the burden of resistance to aggression is pressing very heavily against the living standards and productive opportunities of other free peo- ples. They are just as desirous of achieving freedom and security as we are. But the re- sources they can devote to building economic and military strength are much more limited than ours, because they have far less of a margin above the absolute necessities of life. Under these circumstances, the help we give them can return many times its cost in greater security for them and for us. The record of the recent years shows that this is true — and the contrast between our own eco- nomic situation and that of other free peoples shows how fallacious is any claim that we are doing more than our part. The people of the United States have proved that they could stand up under ad- versity whenever the need arose. But we also draw inspiration from achievement. It speeds us forward to even greater achieve- ment. The facts about the strength and progress of the American economy since the Korean outbreak should be made clear to all. These facts can provide the clearest guide to the actions we should take. The presentation of these facts can also strengthen our position in the free world. Communist propaganda is founded upon the false idea that the American economy cannot maintain its strength. Even some of our friends abroad are concerned about the future of the American economy — which they regard as the bulwark of the hopes of free men everywhere. The truth about our economic situation should also be brought home to them. THE FACTS OF OUR ECONOMIC STRENGTH In previous Reports, I have reviewed the economic progress of the United States since the period before World War II. Compar- ing 1939 with the annual rate for the first half of 1952, our total output has increased 489 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents by almost 90 percent. Industrial output has approximately doubled. The output of our farms, despite a declining number of farm- ers, has increased about one-third. Business investment in construction and equipment, measured in 1951 prices, has risen from an annual rate of 14 billion dollars to an an- nual rate of almost 38 billion. Civilian em- ployment has risen from less than 46 million to an average of about 61 million for the half year just ended. The per capita in- come of the people, even after adjustment for price change and computed after taxes, has risen about 40 percent. In this Report, it is even more pertinent to consider the changes in economic condi- tions which have taken place since two years ago, when the aggression in Korea forced us to a great expansion of our security pro- grams. The facts since then do not reveal any impairment of our general economic strength. On the contrary, they show that the most important elements in that strength have continued to grow. During the last two years, our total out- put, measured in 195 1 prices, has risen from an annual rate of about 300 billion dollars in the second quarter of 1950 to almost 340 billion in the second quarter of 1952. This increase in total output has been greater than the expansion of all our security programs, which during the same period of time have risen from an annual rate of about 19 billion dollars to an annual rate of 50 billion. The net consequence of this is plain. It means that today, despite the expanded security programs, we are producing more for other purposes than we were two years ago. Within the same period of time, op- portunities for business investment have continued to grow. Private business in- vestment in construction and equipment, also measured in 195 1 prices, has risen from an annual rate of 35 billion dollars to an annual rate of about 38 billion. This very high level of business investment includes a greatly increased concentration in those areas which add to the strength of the whole economy both in peace and in war, such as steel, electric power, oil refining, and trans- portation. The general conditions of civilian life have also continued to improve. The an- nual rate of personal incomes, after taxes, measured in 195 1 prices, has risen 10.5 bil- lion dollars since the second quarter of 1950. The annual purchase of goods and services by consumers — again in 1951 prices — has risen by 5 billion dollars. Yet, because in- comes after taxes have risen more than ex- penditures, the annual rate of saving has increased from less than 5 percent to about 7 percent of income after taxes. There is now a good supply of all impor- tant types of civilian goods. People are en- joying not only more of the necessities, but also more of the comforts of life. From early 1951 to early 1952, American homes were equipped with an additional 2 million washing machines, almost 2 million addi- tional refrigerators, about 3% million addi- tional radio receivers, and more than 4 million additional television receivers. More than a million new homes will be built this year. In fact, there are some who now maintain that the defense program should be larger and faster. The size and pace of the defense program has been adjusted to the best avail- able estimates of our security needs. If these- needs should appear to be greater, there is ample strength in our economy to support larger and faster programs. But the con- trolling fact that we should all bear in mind now is this: there is no justification for wavering even a moment from the pursuit of our programs for world peace, on the ground that they are hurting us at home. Never did the facts point more clearly to the opposite conclusion. There are some who challenge the sig- nificance of these facts. They point out that there has been a long-run decline in the value of the dollar; that the level of taxation is very high; and that the Government is running a deficit. These are important problems, and I shall refer to them again later on in this Report. 490 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 19 [215] But it is a complete distortion to center at- tention so exclusively upon these problems as to create the impression that general eco- nomic conditions are deteriorating or that our economic strength is being undermined. True, the long-term trend of prices has been upward since before the start of World War II, which means that the purchasing power of the dollar has declined. Nonethe- less, the growth in business investment and in the people's consumption of goods and services — which I have cited above — has been growth in real terms, after adjusting for price change. Because the economy has vastly expanded the production of goods and services, the standard of living has risen, and the number of dollars in the hands of the people has increased much more rapidly than the decline in the purchasing power of a single dollar. Over the years, the Nation has achieved a more equitable distribution of goods and services and dollars among individuals and among major economic groups, although the long-term rise in prices has hurt some. Furthermore, since early 1 95 1, the anti-inflation program and other conditions have brought about a leveling off of prices. For these reasons, it is wrong to assert that the economy in the long run has moved down-hill, simply because prices have moved up-hill. If there were a depression, prices would fall and the value of the dollar would rise. But most of the people, in that event, would have so few dollars compared with what they now have that they would be much worse off, although each dollar could buy more. Let us always remember, that the time when a single dollar could buy the most, during the whole period from World War I until now, was in 1932 — at the very bottom of the great depression. It is also true that taxes have been high in recent years. But the incomes of the people have increased enough to pay these high taxes and to support a higher level of consumption and a higher level of saving at one and the same time. Likewise, the prof- its of business have been high enough, after taxes, to induce a high and expanding level of investment. Viewing the whole period from the start of the fiscal year 1947 — the first year after demobilization — until the close of the fiscal year which ended June 30, 1952, the Federal Government has operated at a net budget surplus of 3.8 billion dollars. The cash surplus was several times as large. This sur- plus was achieved despite the extraordinary problems the country has faced. The budget deficit of 4.0 billion dollars for the fiscal year 1952 just ended brought the na- tional debt to 259.2 billion dollars. This amount is no higher than on December 31, 1946, and is entirely manageable in an econ- omy as vast and productive as ours. The current and prospective deficit should not prevent the maintenance of economic sta- bility— if the current caution of businessmen and consumers is combined with adequate controls. Taxes, prices, and the Government deficit are important problems. We must keep on working towards satisfactory solutions of these problems. But these problems should not obscure the fact — the far more impor- tant fact — that employment, investment, and production of goods and services for both civilian purposes and for national defense, have been moving upward toward new heights. The truth is that the economy is strong — and is growing stronger. These are the controlling facts, as the American people consider whether they shall step backward or move forward in their practical efforts to achieve a free and peaceful world. BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE The current strength of the economy is our starting point today. We must move forward to advance that strength year by year. This kind of progress has always been desirable. The present world situa- tion makes it imperative. 491 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents Within this decade — by i960 — we can make great further gains in our economic strength. We have the best trained and most highly skilled labor force in the world, the finest industrial and agricultural plant, and the most enterprising business management. These assets are all reinforced by the strength of our free institutions. Producers are provided with adequate incentives and rewards by our economic system. Within this decade — by i960 — we can add at least 4 million to the 62% million em- ployed in civilian pursuits in June 1952. This can be done, even if world conditions should require us to maintain our armed forces at near their present size. With our science, inventiveness and tech- nology, if we keep their advantages open to all, and with a fast-growing population, we can during this decade register even larger annual gains in production than those of pre-Korean years. The worker of today, with better training, better tools, and higher morale, is producing more per hour than ever before, and his productivity is increasing each year. The farmer, with more mechanization and better fertilizers, is growing more per acre, and within this decade can greatly ex- pand production for industrial use and for food, both for the domestic market and for export. Within this decade — by i960 — we can lift our total annual output from the cur- rent level of about 340 billion dollars to nearly 100 billion dollars higher — in real terms. We can do this, not by any ventures that would be strange to our economic or politi- cal institutions, but by conserving what is best in responsible free enterprise and re- sponsible free government. Our free enterprise system has undergone a transformation in outlook within a genera- tion. We have come to recognize that de- pressions are avoidable; that a steadily ex- panding economy is attainable; that invest- ment opportunity and consumer markets can grow simultaneously through the intel- ligent balance of production and distribu- tion. Both employers and employees have come to realize that production policies, price policies, and wage policies can be adopted which will combine economic stability with economic growth. Not yet perfectiy, but quite workably, our free enterprise system has been applying such policies in recent years. The proof of this lies in the progress of the economy. A still better job, with less friction, is attainable in the future. While our major reliance should continue to be upon our enterprise system, the process of growth also requires vigorous public poli- cies. The central purpose of such policies, in the economic field, is to help make the econ- omy more productive and more dynamic, and to assure that none who are deserving are excluded from opportunity to play their full part and to earn a just reward. We have found from experience that pro- grams serving this purpose are needed in these main categories: To make agriculture more productive, by conserving and improving the soil, by mak- ing credit readily available, by improving work opportunities for farm labor, and by protecting the farmer from the price and in- come hazards peculiar to his work. To make small business more productive, by keeping open its access to credit on rea- sonable terms, and by an antitrust policy which protects efficient small businesses from any disadvantages which might result just because they are small. To make all business more productive, by stimulating the expanding markets which are essential to business growth and profits. To make the worker more productive, by protecting him from fear of unemployment and of unmerited want in old age, and by assuring free collective bargaining. To make the underpaid more productive, by setting a floor below which wages shall not fall, until industrial development and self-development can further lift their pro- ductiveness and their standards of living. 492 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 19 [215] To make the citizen more productive, through improving education, housing, and health services. To make our natural resources more pro- ductive, by protecting them from exploita- tion or deterioration through such means as flood control and forest management, and by developing them for such purposes as navigation and power. To make the whole economy more pro- ductive in the long run, by using monetary and fiscal measures, along with other pol- icies, to stabilize and expand the economy, and to protect it against depression. None of these programs can be neglected in the course of national defense, because they are all essential to our total national strength. Some of them, because of their direct bearing upon national defense, have had to be speeded up. Others, because of the cost of national defense, have had to be carried forward at a slower rate than would otherwise have been desirable. As the productive expansion of the econ- omy lightens the defense burden, we must look forward to increasing these programs to the rate which our general national in- terest requires. Because we have the economic capacity to raise our current annual product of about 340 billion dollars to nearly 100 billion dol- lars higher within this decade — by i960 — we can well afford to devote a portion of this gain to advancing these essential programs. In fact, it is only by carrying forward these essential programs that we can assure this high rate of economic progress. For eco- nomic progress in our type of society is closely linked with economic justice. Only through enabling all to share equitably in the products of our farms and factories, and in our bountiful natural resources, can we maintain the expanding demand to match our expanding productive power. If the satisfaction of human wants does not keep pace with our productive power, depression results. The years since World War II have dem- onstrated that our economic system, rein- forced by public policy, has been able to avoid depression by keeping production and consumption reasonably in balance. Some maladjustments have occurred, but they have been remedied in time to prevent calamity. Under these circumstances, it is unworthy of this great Nation to regard another de- pression as unavoidable. Through neglect, we could have one. But we know what it would cost. We are determined to take all necessary steps to avoid that cost. The expansion of the economy which we can achieve within this decade is of a size sufficient, while supporting any foreseeable security programs short of total war, to en- able us at the same time to lift progressively the standard of living, to come near to wip- ing out poverty within our own boundaries, and to make our proper contribution toward a more prosperous and more peaceful world. It is neither idle nor irrelevant to think and work toward this future. It is these hopes for the future which provide goals and the courage to work toward them, at a time when so many hard and immediate problems confront us. Those who say that our current efforts are so large and so costly as to rob us of these hopes for the future, are not protecting the future. On the con- trary, they are endangering the future by misjudging the needs of today. OUTSTANDING IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS To achieve a better future, we must meet correctly the pressing problems of the present. Carrying forward the defense program We have not yet achieved the necessary build-up of our defensive strength, but notable progress has been made. Outlays for major national security programs, which were running at an annual rate of 19 billion dollars (in terms of 195 1 prices) in the sec- ond quarter of 1950, were running at a rate of 50 billion in the second quarter of this year, and will rise to an annual rate between 493 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents 60 and 65 billion next year. These very substantial increases show not only an impressive record in the quantity, but also an impressive improvement in the quality, of the weapons and other materials we are buying. We must set our sights high, because we want our fighting men to have the best equipment we know how to make. We have been hastening the latest designs off the drawing boards and into pro- duction. This course has magnified the early technical difficulties of the programs. But it is now beginning to pay off in volume deliveries of aircraft, tanks, and other equip- ment which will more than hold their own against any enemy. The flow of such key hard-to-produce items will increase during the coming months. Already, in contrast to the first year of the present defense program, in the 12 months just passed most of the increased spending has been for "hardware" and military con- struction. Soft goods procurement has sta- bilized on the plateau required for maintain- ing the present size of the armed forces. As we proceed to develop the security pro- gram, the problems which must be resolved will continue to be complex. But the expe- rience of the last 2 years now enables us to face them with growing assurance. We must continue to maintain a series of bal- ances— a balance between volume produc- tion and further improvements; a balance among different types of weapons and forces, as technology and strategic consid- erations change; a balance between armed strength at home and aid to armed strength abroad; and a balance between the devotion of resources to defense purposes and their devotion to civilian uses. Moreover, we must continue to effectuate practical econ- omies without yielding to superficial pleas for short-sighted economy at the price of safety. Protection against inflation Although the long-term rise in prices before the start of World War II has not prevented the great economic progress which has been made since then, we would now be even better off if the price level had been more firmly held. During the war, considering the size of the effort, the record of price stabilization was very good. The premature abandonment of controls after the war permitted the cost of living to rise 30 percent from the middle of 1946 to the mid- dle of 1948 — the great bulk of the rise since the war. This illustrates the danger of weakening controls now, when the expan- sion of the defense program is still under way. A further inflation of the price level or diminution in the value of the dollar can and should be avoided. Despite a rapidly rising defense program, the general price level has been held remark- ably stable since early 1951. This has been due to several main causes — increases in pro- duction since the Korean outbreak, a high degree of caution on the part of businessmen and consumers, and a well-rounded though not completely adequate anti-inflationary program. The maintenance of price stabil- ity depends upon the further expansion of production, continued caution in buying, and the maintenance of an adequate anti- inflationary program at least for another year or two. Unfortunately, the anti-inflationary pro- gram was weakened rather than strength- ened by the Congress this year, and I be- lieve that it will be the duty of the Congress next year to strengthen it. In the mean- time, the Government will exert every re- source available to control inflation. The outlook for the next few months is favorable, if neither business nor consumers resort to excessive buying, which would be foolish in view of the fundamental adequacy of most lines of supply. The financial affairs of Government We would all like to live in a world where public expenditures could be reduced and taxes correspondingly reduced. But the issue now is not so simple as that. The issue is whether we could reverse the upward course of public outlays and correspondingly 494 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 19 [215] lighten the tax burden, without suffering disadvantages which would far outweigh the benefits. The plain facts are that we cannot afford to reduce the size of our efforts in the pursuit of world peace either at home or abroad. These efforts, along with the costs of past wars (veterans' benefits and interest charges), comprise more than 85 percent of the Federal Budget for the current fiscal year. The nonsecurity outlays of the Gov- ernment have already been cut severely. Because of the long-run needs of an expand- ing economy and a growing population, we cannot afford for long — although we have had to risk it for a while — to hold outlays for such items as resource development and slum clearance, education and health, at the current levels. It was my view at the commencement of the defense emergency that, in a period of full prosperity and partial mobilization, enough taxes should be collected to balance the Budget. By January of this year, it was clear that this principle had been departed from by the Congress to a degree which made it impossible to avoid a deficit. Whether the Government runs a surplus or a deficit is important, but it is not of such decisive importance for the economy as to outweigh all other considerations. There have been times when a Federal surplus did not protect the economy against inflation, and other times when a Federal deficit did not produce inflation. Over the next year or two, the inflationary problem would be easier to deal with if revenues were larger and the deficit smaller. But the prospective deficit is not sufficiently threatening to our economy to justify reducing it by gambling with our national safety. The significance of the deficit should also be judged over a period longer than one year, and in relation to the size and produc- tive growth of the economy as a whole. During the current fiscal year 1953, the Government is likely to run a budget deficit in the neighborhood of 10 billion dollars, according to tentative calculations by the Council of Economic Advisers. This means that for the entire 7-year period starting with the fiscal year 1947, which was the first fiscal year succeeding demobilization after World War II, the Government will have run a total budget deficit of about 6 billion dollars. If we take into account the net excess of receipts in the trust and other accounts, the fiscal years 1947 through 1953 will show an estimated cash surplus of about 18 billion dollars. This has been a good performance. I would have liked it to have been even better. But certainly these facts do not jus- tify fear of disaster in an economy which, during the same span of years, will have lifted its total annual output from about 270 billion dollars to 350 billion dollars or more, measured in 195 1 prices. With respect to the national debt, which stood at 258 billion dollars at the end of the fiscal year 1947, and was reduced to its post- war low point of 252 billion dollars in April 1949, it is estimated that the debt may rise to almost 270 billion dollars by the end of the fiscal year 1953. It would have been better to have avoided an increase of this size by more realistic tax legislation. But it would be all out of perspective to say that, in order to hold this increase of the national debt to a few billion dollars less, we should jeopardize the national security by slashing our defense expenditures. To the extent that the Congress does not reduce the deficit through tax action, the only available course is to seek the more gradual removal of the deficit by (a) the leveling-off of security outlays at a mainte- nance rate after the necessary build-up has been achieved, (b) the increase in revenues resulting from the further expansion of the economy, and (c) the continuation of pol- icies designed to eliminate waste and in- crease efficiency without sacrificing essential objectives for national security and for eco- nomic progress. Labor-management relations The steel dispute in a time of national emergency brings to the fore again the prob- 495 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents lem of relations between employers and workers. It has long been recognized that certain types of work stoppages afreet the whole na- tional interest so greatly that a way must be found to bring them to an end before irreparable damage is done. While various types of public bodies may offer advice, this advice may be rejected by either party. Any governmental authority of a more conclusive character would as a practical matter have to include the authority to deal with the subject matter of the dispute. This is be- cause any action by the Government requir- ing resumption of operations, without touching upon the issues at stake, is an in- tervention, regardless of the merits on the side of that party which desires no change. Present legislation does not meet this problem, in cases of nation-wide disputes in major industries. In such cases, it allows the Government only to achieve a delay in any threatened shutdown, either through the method used in the steel case, or through use of the Taft-Hartley Act. The steel case shows that delay is not enough. There must be a basic solution. Nor is authority for the Government to make recommendations always enough — though it has succeeded in settling nearly every case that has arisen so far, except steel. In the steel case, the properly constituted Government agency — the Wage Stabiliza- tion Board — made recommendations for set- tlement of the dispute. One of the parties has thus far refused to agree to a settlement, even though the other party has indicated its willingness to accept considerably less than the Board recommended, and even though the Government, in its earnest efforts to avoid a stoppage, indicated that it would grant price concessions well in excess of any required under existing law or justified be- cause of the wage increases proposed. When one party to a dispute which is crit- ically affecting the national interest recog- nizes no obligation to abide by the recom- mendations of the Government — although the Government is the only resort of the people when the parties cannot agree — the need for more adequate legislation is fully demonstrated. I have requested new legislation which would permit the Government to maintain essential production, to be fair to both sides in the dispute, and to retain the maximum degree of free collective bargaining. Such legislation has not been enacted, and I hope that the Congress will recognize the need for it. At best, however, any such legislation can provide only a temporary or interim solu- tion. We all know that, in a democracy, under our kind of economic system, differ- ences between management and labor can be resolved enduringly only by agreement and not by intervention. I do not know, as this is written, how soon the steel dispute may be ended. The only practical method now open for the settle- ment of the steel dispute is bargaining be- tween the parties. I have continuously urged that the parties recognize the emer- gency confronting the Nation. It is im- perative that the parties settle their dif- ferences immediately, and resume the production of steel — the loss of which is now causing such great damage to the national defense and to the civilian economy. The parties must realize that collective bargaining is a precious liberty, enjoyed by both employers and workers, and that the possession of liberty involves not only rights but also duties on the part of both employers and workers — including the duty so to exer- cise freedom that it does not encroach upon the freedom of others. The freedom of all the people is at stake in the current emer- gency, and the production of steel is essen- tial to the support of that freedom. This should be taken to heart, not only in the interest of the country, but also because any failure to do so might ultimately cause the country to place restrictions upon the economic freedom of management and labor which would represent a new and perhaps 496 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 19 [215] a serious departure from our way of life. Economic relations with the free world There is general agreement that we must join with the free world in the development of military strength. But there is not yet in this country an equally general under- standing that the military security of the free world is inseparable from its economic future. This is true because economic strength is the source of military strength, and because no nation can maintain either the means or the morale to maintain a great defense effort in a period short of total war unless its economic conditions are at least tolerable. It is true for the even more im- portant reason that the free peoples of the world want not only to be secure from mili- tary attack; they also want to live as free men should live. They want adequate food and clothing, housing, and medical care. They want to advance their industrial arts, so that they will have the productive power to achieve these ends. These aspirations are not only worthy; they are vital. The United States would be in much greater danger, if the people of any substan- tial portion of the free world should come to believe that we are not interested in their human aspirations, but interested only in helping them to arm in order to help defend ourselves. This would provide the com- munists with a propaganda weapon against which counter-measures would be extremely difficult. Recent actions by the Congress have dis- played a failure to appreciate in full the importance of these facts. But facts have a way of persisting, and I am sure the time will come when the Congress will respond to them fully. I can only hope that it will not be too late. The people of the United States have gained more through the maintenance of freedom than any other people in the history of the world. Hence we have the most to lose if freedom is lost, and we cannot cn- duringly remain free unless freedom pre- dominates in the rest of the world. There is nothing in our own history, or in the history of all human events, to indi- cate that freedom can be maintained with- out cost and effort. It costs a lot to main- tain freedom, in money and material things, in human understanding, and sometimes in blood. To avoid an incalculable cost in blood, we must be prepared to sustain a great effort in money and material things and in human understanding. The building of military security is only a first stage in this long effort. We must be prepared, while that first stage is going forward, and increasingly after it is com- pleted, to make our fair contribution toward a more prosperous free world. And a more prosperous free world will mean a more secure free world. In this long effort, the kind of emergency aid which we have thus far been extending will need to be supplemented and then in- creasingly supplanted by a more normal flow of capital from the United States to other countries. This, in turn, will need to be accompanied by more realistic appreciation that exports must in the long run be accom- panied by imports. It is disturbing to note that, despite the high level of employment in the United States, pressures have been growing recendy to restrict imports. Embargoes on importa- tion of foreign products, increases in duties on imported goods, and numerous requests for other increased duties, are some examples of how these pressures for restriction of im- ports have manifested themselves. The pressures for restrictionism have generally been exerted with too littie consideration for the effects that the measures have on our security objectives, and on economic policies consistent with our position as a creditor nation. Trade restrictions have a direct impact on United States programs to strengthen the free world. The joint defense effort must be built on a solid foundation of strong nations acting together. We cannot con- sistently throw up barriers here, while, at 497 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents the same time, we urge the creation of a close partnership in the North Atlantic com- munity. Inconsistencies of this sort under- mine the basis on which our position of leadership rests. In addition, the economies of our friends are much more dependent on foreign trade than the economy of the United States. If they are unable to earn dollars to pay for those essential commodities which they now purchase in the dollar area, they will be under additional pressure to secure them in other areas of the world, in- cluding the Soviet bloc. The encouragement of economic condi- tions which will enable the other free nations to pay their own way is the goal that we must seek, as a transition from the emer- gency conditions which have made it essen- tial for us to extend temporary aid. The way to get out of an emergency is not to pretend that the emergency does not exist, but instead to remove the conditions which have produced the emergency. Communist subversion will present no great threat to the free world, as the free world achieves economic stability and further economic progress. Communist aggression may still continue to be a threat, but the free world will then have the clearly apparent power to resist any such aggression. We must con- tinue, with courage and vision, to help create the conditions in the free world which will provide the only dependable foundation for lasting peace. SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIRST HALF OF 1952 At midyear 1952, the Nation had made further progress in acquiring the greater economic and military strength which will enable it to continue to meet, in company with the other countries of the free world, the threat of communist aggression. Substantial expansions of capacity in such basic industries as steel, aluminum, and elec- tric power were well under way. Deliveries of military goods and construc- tion for the major national security programs during the first half of 1952 reached a total of almost 15 billion dollars, 9 billion dollars above deliveries in the first half of 195 1, and 12 billion dollars above the level in the sec- ond half of 1950. Total output during the first 6 months of 1952 expanded at a moderate rate. Meas- ured in dollars of constant buying power, gross national product was running at an annual rate (seasonally adjusted) about 1 percent higher than in the preceding 6 months. Industrial production, after regaining the small amount of ground lost in the second half of 1 95 1, slipped back in the second quar- ter, partly because of work stoppages in steel and petroleum. For the half year, the index of industrial production was 3 percent below the first half of 1951. The civilian labor force during the past half year averaged about the same as a year earlier, the increase in the total labor force being taken up by growth of the armed forces. Civilian employment in June totaled 62% million. Employment during the first half of 1952 averaged about 300,000 above the first half of 1951, all of the increase occur- ring outside agriculture. Agricultural em- ployment continued its downward trend. In manufacturing, there was a small decline in average weekly hours of work, reflecting, in part, some weakness in the markets for many consumer goods. Unemployment during the first 6 months of this year was close to 300,000 below the same period a year earlier. In the last month of the half year, unemployment was the lowest for any June since World War II. Wor\ stoppages caused more loss of work- ing time than during the first half of 1951, partly because of an increase in the number of stoppages and partly because of the size of some of the industries involved. Economic stability was well maintained during the past half year. The monthly index of wholesale prices 498 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 19 [215] drifted downward in each month, and in June was 2 percent below December 1951. Consumers prices, after edging downward early in 1952, moved up again by May to about the record level reached at the end of 1951. Wages rose, but less rapidly than in the first half of 195 1. Average hourly earnings in all manufac- turing industries, for example, moved up 4 percent during the comparable period a year earlier, and only 1 percent in the latest half year. The volume of money in private hands in June was 700 million dollars below the De- cember 195 1 level. Total ban\ loans and investments ex- panded 2 billion dollars, or 2 percent, from December to June. Pardy because of less strong demands for private credit, the volun- tary program of credit restraint and the con- trols over instalment credit were suspended, and the housing regulations were somewhat relaxed. Legislative authority for the vol- untary credit restraint programs and for instalment credit controls was ended in the amended Defense Production Act. Personal incomes continued to rise, prin- cipally because of increases in salaries and wages. Disposable income — personal income after taxes — was at the seasonally adjusted an- nual rate of 231 billion dollars during the first half of 1952, 2 billion dollars, or 1 per- cent, above the second half of 195 1, and 10 billion dollars, or 5 percent, above the first half of last year. Consumer spending rose only a little more rapidly than earnings from the second half of 1 95 1, so that the proportion of disposable income saved, about 7 percent, was nearly as large as the high level of the preceding year. Moderation in consumer spending was one of the chief factors in the continued stability of the economy. Residential construction remained high. The number of housing starts totaled 568,000 for the period January-June, which was only 4 percent below the volume of starts during the first 6 months of 1951. Consumer credit outstanding, after de- clining seasonally during the first quarter of this year, climbed rather sharply in the sec- ond, paced by the rise in instalment credit. The suspension of instalment credit regula- tions early in May undoubtedly contributed to the increase. At the end of June, instal- ment credit was 600 million dollars, or 4 percent, above the level of December 195 1. In contrast, during the first half of 195 1, instalment credit dropped 500 million dol- lars. Agricultural marketings were about 6 per- cent above the level of the first half of 1951, so that despite somewhat lower prices there was an increase in cash receipts. However, net earnings were below 1951, because of the rise in farm costs. Crop prospects, as of early July, were relatively good, with cur- rent indications pointing to a toal crop pro- duction second only to the record year 1948. Manufacturers turned out about the same amount of durable goods as in the first half of 195 1, production related to defense off- setting a decline in the output of consumers' durable goods. However, production of nondurable goods by manufacturing indus- tries was less than in the first 6 months of 1951. Wholesale sales, seasonally adjusted, were below the level of the first half of 195 1, and slightly below the level of the second half of that year. Retail sales, seasonally adjusted, rose above the first half of 195 1. The accumulation of business inventories occurred at a sharply falling rate after the second quarter of 1951. From the first to the second quarter of this year, there was a decline in inventories. The decline in the rate of investment in inventories was one of the major factors in promoting economic stability during the past 12 months. Business investment in construction and equipment has remained high, reflecting the progress noted above in the expansion of 499 [215] July 19 Public Papers of the Presidents productive capacity. Outlays for these pur- poses were at the seasonally adjusted annual rate of 38 billion dollars during the first half of 1952, which was 3 percent above the level of the first half of 1951, and 4 percent above the second half. Business borrowing from commercial banks followed a more nearly normal sea- sonal course during the first 6 months of this year than a year earlier, when the rapid accumulation of inventories stimulated the demand for funds. Commercial and indus- trial loans fell 700 million dollars, or 3 per- cent, from December 195 1 to June 1952. In contrast, during the comparable period a year before, total business loans expanded 1.8 billion dollars. Although business bor- rowing from commercial banks was less than a year before, the demand for longer- term capital was greater, partly because of the high level of investment in plant and equipment. The volume of corporate securities floated to obtain new capital during the past 6 months was 700 million dollars, or 21 per- cent, above the level of the first 6 months of 1951. Corporate profits, before taxes, were run- ning at an estimated seasonally adjusted annual rate of 41 billion dollars during the first half of this year, which was about 12 percent below the rate of the first half of 195 1, but slightly above that of the second half. Corporate profits after taxes were about 13 percent below the first half of 1951, and slightly above the second half of that year. Total Federal expenditures, during the fiscal year just ended, rose to 66 billion dol- lars, 21% billion above the fiscal 1951 total. The increase was due primarily to purchases of goods and services for the major national security programs. Federal receipts for fiscal 1952, due to higher tax rates and the greater dollar vol- ume of business activity, rose to 62 billion dollars, 14 billion above the total for the preceding year. The relatively greater growth in expenditures in fiscal 1952 re- sulted in a budget deficit of 4.0 billion dol- lars, compared with a surplus of 3.5 billion in fiscal 195 1. In fiscal 1952, the Federal Government's cash budget was about in bal- ance; in 1 95 1, there was a cash surplus of about 7.6 billion dollars. In Federal public debt operations, the most notable developments during the past 6 months were the announcement by the Treasury in April of extensive changes in the types and terms of U.S. savings bonds intended to increase their attractiveness to' the public, and the highly successful offer of a 6-year bond, the first marketable bond offered since World War II for the purpose of raising new money. State and local governments' receipts and expenditures have risen during the past 2 years, the latter in part because of a growth in outlays for new construction. The in- crease in the latter has also resuled in a record volume of new securities issues. Many foreign nations, largely as an after- math to the world-wide post-Korean surge in business, have experienced balance of pay- ments difficulties. Their expanding domes- tic production, rising incomes, and in many cases inflation, have contributed to an in- crease in the imports of many foreign coun- tries abroad. Exports, on the other hand, have either failed to rise as fast as imports, or (particularly in the case of countries ex- porting raw materials) have actually fallen in value. Corrective actions have been taken to improve balance of payments situa- tions, largely through such measures as credit controls to restrict loan demand, fiscal measures, and increased import restrictions. By the first half of 1952, there was evidence that, partly because of the use of the former measures, most countries in the free world were achieving stability at high levels of production. United States imports of merchandise dur- ing the first 5 months of 1952 were at a rate 11 percent higher than in the second half of 1951, although they were still below the first half of that year. The recent rise in imports was in large measure due to reduction in 500 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 25 [217] the large stocks of many commodities, which had been built up late in 1950 and early in 195 1. United States exports of nonmilitary goods, despite the increase in import restric- tions and other measures taken by many foreign countries, maintained during the first months of 1952 the high levels of the last part of 195 1. Exports of military sup- plies increased. Harry S. Truman note: The message and the complete report (188 pp.) are published in House Document 489 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). As printed above, the charts have been omitted. 216 Statement by the President on the Settlement of the Steel Strike. July 24, 1952 MR. MURRAY and Mr. Fairless have just advised me that six major steel companies and the United Steel Workers of America (CIO) have reached agreement on impor- tant basic issues. The union is calling its National Wage Policy Committee to meet in Washington tomorrow morning for the purpose of ratifying the agreement. This should lead to a speedy resumption of steel production. 217 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to Denmark. July 25, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 7, a Danish shipbuilding firm de- livered to the Soviet Union a 13,000-ton pe- troleum tanker. Tankers of this category have been listed by the Administrator of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act as items of "primary strategic significance". Under Public Law 213, 82nd Congress, I am therefore required to terminate all mili- tary, economic and financial aid to Denmark or to direct the continuation of such aid if termination would "clearly be detrimental to the security of the United States". I have considered this problem with great care and Mr. W. Averell Harriman, the Ad- ministrator of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act, has gone into it exhaustively with all Government agencies concerned, including the Departments of State and De- fense and the United States civil and military chiefs in Europe. The issues presented by this case go far beyond the carrying capacity of an oil tanker and the physical volume of United States aid to Denmark. They go to the very heart of our mutual security program. The United States Government is fully aware that the community of free nations can realize its potential strength only through common actions that have been agreed upon freely by equal partners after democratic exchange of views. Over the past several years, we and the other NATO countries have made important reductions in strategic trade with the Soviet bloc. The United States has taken and will continue to take the lead in seeking to prevent the shipment of any commodities that would add significandy to the military strength of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Denmark is a small nation that lives in the shadow of a powerful and unfriendly power. It has a long tradition of neutralism and has not, in recent history, maintained substantial armed forces. In 1949, the Dan- ish people supported the courageous decision of their government to enter the North At- lantic Treaty Organization and join together with the other western democracies in com- mon defense against the threat of Soviet 55-672^60- -35 501 [217] July 25 Public Papers of the Presidents aggression. The Danish Government has collaborated consistently with the United States and other free nations in the common effort to eliminate from their trade with the Soviet bloc those items that would contribute significantly to the armed potential of the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Danish Government does not dispute the strategic value of the tanker in question. However, the Danish Government has con- sidered that it was legally obligated to per- mit delivery of the vessel. Delivery of the tanker was called for by a trade agreement signed in 1948; and a firm contract with a Danish shipbuilding firm was signed in 1949, before the communist aggression in Korea and long before the Battle Act was in existence. The Danish Government has emphasized to the United States Govern- ment that it traditionally has maintained the sanctity of international commitments and has pointed out the possible impact on its relations with the Soviet bloc of a viola- tion of the trade treaty. The United States Government recognized the strength of the Danish position in this regard. In our own dealings with other nations, we have con- sistently recognized the importance of hon- oring international commitments in the be- lief that such a policy provides one of the best means of securing a world peace. The United States Government felt very strongly, however, that the aggressive inten- tions of the Soviet Union, as revealed in the communist attack on the Republic of Korea and the continuation of the Kremlin's cam- paign of threat and hatred against the free world, overrode the legal considerations in- volved in the proposed transaction. This view was forcefully presented to the Danish Government, because we felt that the secu- rity interests of the United States and those of Denmark were identical in these matters and would be best served by non-delivery of the tanker. The United States Government still holds this view and deeply regrets the delivery. The Battle Act directs me to consider whether the termination of aid would "clearly be detrimental to the security of the United States." In arriving at my decision, I have considered the following factors: 1. By virtue of its geography, Denmark occupies an important position in the stra- tegic plans formulated by SHAPE for the defense of western Europe and therefore of the United States. It commands the exit from the Baltic Sea to the Atlantic Ocean and its participation is thus essential to the success of any plan to keep the Soviet sub- marine fleet from operating from the Baltic in the event of war. In addition, Denmark exercises political jurisdiction over Green- land, an important bridge between North America and the European continent on which the United States Air Force now maintains strategic bases, important to the air and naval defense of North America. 2. Denmark is contributing directiy to the defense build-up of the NATO powers. A substantial part of the ground forces as- signed by SHAPE to the northern flank of the European defense system is being pro- vided by Denmark, in addition to air and naval units being contributed to the NATO forces. Members of the Danish Govern- ment have indicated recently that they are considering revision of a long-standing pol- icy against the presence of non-Danish forces on Danish territory in order to make avail- able to NATO forces certain facilities which would contribute gready to the defensive strength of the Atlantic area. Danish con- tributions to the common defense could not be met without American assistance. 3. The Danes require certain vital im- ports, notably coal and potash, from the Soviet bloc. The dependence of the Danes on imports from the Soviet bloc is reduced substantially by American aid. Without the aid, Denmark would be forced to seek more of its imports from the Soviet bloc and, in return, would have to make greater exports. The most effective export which Denmark could offer would be ships and ship repair services, and Soviet bloc negotia- tors would be in a strong position to bargain for increased deliveries of tankers and other 502 Harry S. Truman, 7952 July 26 [218] vessels. Termination of United States aid would therefore result in a greater rather than diminished flow of strategic goods and services to the Soviet bloc. 4. For some years, the Danish Govern- ment has cooperated consistendy with the United States and other free governments in the development of collective programs to eliminate or curtail the shipment of stra- tegic commodities to the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Danish Government now operates a comprehensive system of export controls and has again reassured the United States Government of its intention to con- tinue to collaborate fully in international efforts to eliminate strategic trade with the Soviet bloc. The delivery of the tanker in question was not the result of any laxity in the Danish system of controls but rather, as pointed out above, was due to the fact that the Danish Government regarded its deliv- ery as required by legally binding commit- ments made prior to the time these inter- national efforts were instituted. 5. The security of the United States is squarely based on the unity of the western world and the continued strengthening of its joint institutions, particularly the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is a pri- mary political and propaganda objective of the communist bloc to weaken those insti- tutions and to drive a wedge between the democratic allies which have joined together for their common defense. There can be no question that the termination of United States aid would weaken the structure of Atlantic unity, and thus serve the ends of Soviet policy. 6. The Administrator of the Battle Act has recommended to me that aid to Den- mark be continued. His recommendation has been supported by the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Defense; General Ridgway; the United States Special Representative in Europe, Ambassador Draper; the United States Ambassador to Denmark, Mrs. An- derson; and other interested Government officials. On the basis of these considerations, I have concluded that to terminate aid to Den- mark would clearly be detrimental to the security of the United States by weakening the defenses of NATO, contributing to the strength of the Soviet Union, fostering the political and propaganda objectives of the communist bloc, and defeating the purposes of the Battle Act. In conformity with Sec- tion 103(b) of Public Law 213, 82nd Con- gress, I therefore have directed that military, economic and financial aid to Denmark be continued. As you will realize, many of the details of the considerations involved in this mat- ter are highly classified. Representatives of the Executive Branch will be pleased to dis- cuss this matter further with you and your Committee, if you so desire. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters addressed to the Honorable Kenneth McKellar, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee, the Honorable Clarence Cannon, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chairman of the House Armed Serv- ices Committee, and the Honorable James P. Richards, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 218 Address in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention. July 26, 1952 [Broadcast from Convention Hall at 1:43 a.m.] Mr. Chairman: be done here tonight, and I appreciate im- You know, it's early in the morning, and mensely this grand reception which you have it's getting earlier. Certain things have to given me. I will appreciate it a lot more,, 503 [218] July 26 Public Papers of the Presidents now, if you will be quiet and let me do my job and get the new presidential nominee here, so he can make a good acceptance speech. It has been a grand day for me. You peo- ple here have had a great and magnificent convention. I have been watching conven- tions and listening to them ever since I have been old enough, and this — in my opinion — is the greatest Democratic convention ever held. You have demonstrated here for all the world to see, that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. You have had a free convention. You have made your rules and you have adopted your platform. You have met the issues head-on — the only way to meet them. You have stood by the principles that make the Democratic Party great. You have adopted a platform that says what it means, and means what it says. You have laid down a winning program, and you have nominated a winner for the next President of the United States. You are going out of this convention much stronger than when you came in. One of the things that impressed me as I watched this convention on television — and I missed very little of it — is the wealth of good men of great ability that we have in the Democratic Party. I have never worried about the outcome of this convention, because all those placed in nomination have been unusually fine men and able leaders. I don't know of any time that our party has had better men to choose from, and we have had a lot of good men in the Democratic Party. The only trouble was, we had to pick one — and leave the others out. It was hard to make a choice among these great leaders, but the choice that we have made is one that we can all get behind. We are going out of here an inspired and fight- ing party, dedicated to the welfare of the people. We are bound to win this election. Now, 4 years ago, I told the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, that Senator Barkley and I were going out and win in 1948. And that is just what we did. There were a lot of people who didn't be- lieve me. They turned out to be wrong. I am telling you now that Adlai Stevenson is going to win in 1952. We are going to win in 1952 the same way we won in 1948. And I pledge you now that I am going to take my coat off and do everything I can to help him win. Now, the Republicans can't understand why it is that the Democrats keep on win- ning elections. They think there's some kind of trick in it, and they have just about gone crazy trying to find out what that trick is. You know, the real reason the Democrats win elections is a perfectly simple reason — because the Democratic Party gives the American people the kind of government they want. Under our leadership, the people of America march forward. Think of what our Nation has done in 20 years of Demo- cratic leadership. Think of it! A country rescued from disaster and made the greatest and strongest Nation in the history of the world. They have 62 million jobs — 62 mil- lion people at work — the highest living standards in our history, the best distribu- tion of income mankind ever saw. More leisure, greater freedom, and better health, and more security for the average man than any people ever before in the history of the world. Now, every 4 years the Republican lead- ers, men of little faith and no vision — they wouldn't be Republicans if they weren't that way — they come forth and try to stop the progress of a mighty people. Well, they are at it again this year. They are determined and powerful, and they are going to throw all of their forces into the campaign. They have money. They are going to throw millions of dollars into their attempt to deceive and confuse the 504 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 26 [218] American people, and stop this onward march. Well now, in 1948 we didn't have any money. There were times when I couldn't get the train out of the station, when I was out on that whisdestop tour. And you know what happened, don't you? We made them like it. And then there were a lot of people who thought the Democratic Party was a great party, and we managed to pay our bills — but it all happened after- wards. It has been my experience ever since I have been in politics; that when you want to win an election you go out and win it on the merits, and convince the people that what you have for them is better than what the other fellow is trying to give them. That is exacdy my policy, and that is what is going to happen this time. Now, these Republicans have nearly all of the newspapers and magazines on their side. They may have, and probably will have, public opinion polls — as in 1948. Well, the pollsters and the press in 1948 acted like Kipling's monkey convention in his famous jungle book. You know, the monkeys had a convention, and the head of the whole simians made a statement, and made a state- ment, and made a statement. And he kept on making that statement. Finally, the concourse said, "It must be so, we all say so. It must be so, we all say so." It turned out a little differently in 1948. You know, those pollsters and pressmen should have conferred with the people, in- stead of holding monkey meetings among themselves. They had control of big business. Look at the advertising figures, if you don't be- lieve it. It has always been against Presi- dent Roosevelt. It has always been against me. And if it was for me, I'd know I was wrong! We have gone ahead in spite of it, because the people, in five elections in a row, have shown they don't pay any atten- tion to what the newspapers tell them. And smart writers — the smart writers can't fool the hardheaded voters of the United States of America. Now, the Republicans have bad records, and they have no program. People are not going to pay any attention to men who have been opposing everything the people have wanted for the last 20 years. They know that the Republican reactionaries have fought against every measure that has made our country prosperous at home and power- ful abroad. Now here is what they have been against. The Republicans have been against social security. They have been against price sup- ports to farmers. They have been against fair labor standards laws. They have been against TV A, and rural electrification, and low-cost power. They have been against housing programs, and rent controls, against measures to strengthen national defense, and against measures of peaceful cooperation with the other nations of the world. This year they have made it perfectly plain they are going backward and not for- ward. They have their 1920 model in reverse, just to be sure. In their 1952 platform, the Republicans endorse the Taft-Hartley Act — lock, stock and barrel. Well, here we are! — they are for something — Taft-Hardey. They have come out against Federal aid to education. They promise to cut the farmer loose, and take his chances in the marketplace — they want to put him in the hands of the loan sharks and have the courts foreclose him again. They weasel on civil rights. Read their civil rights paragraph, and then read our paragraph on civil rights, and see which one you want. They promise to remove price controls, and scuttle rent control. They are always for something that will hurt the people and help special privilege. Now, wonder of wonders, this is one you can write home about. They even endorse the 80th Congress. Can you beat that? That discredited 80th Congress! 505 [2i8] July 26 Public Papers of the Presidents Well, the Republicans are for two things: They are for Taft-Hartley, and they are for that discredited 80th Congress. That is just about as forward-looking as they ever get. They are looking back all the time. This country won't listen to men who want to turn back the clock, men who want to run the car in reverse instead of high gear. That is what they want to do. The country is not going to choose leaders who have no faith in the people. This country is not going to turn over its prosperity to men who would sacrifice the many to pro- tect the privileges of the few, and that is Republican policy from start to finish. I don't think the country is going to turn the safety of this country over to men who are more concerned in cutting the budget than they are with stopping communism. Now, this country is determined to go forward, and to go forward in high gear. The people of this country are far ahead of most of the politicians, and they always are. The people are not afraid of new ideas. They want the Government to go ahead with the measures that are necessary to realize the unlimited opportunities America offers for increasing the happiness and welfare of the people of this great country. That is why the people will turn this year, as they have in the past, to the party of progress, the Democratic Party — the party of the people. They will turn to us because we have a program for going forward. It is a program of concrete, practical meas- ures— written down in black and white in the platform in words that are as plain and easy to understand as it is possible. Now, our greatest program is for world peace. First of all, ours is a program for peace in the world. This is a program to which we have dedicated ourselves with all our hearts. We are determined to avoid world war three. Everything I have done since I took office has been directed toward this single goal: preserving the peace of the world. The foundation of our program for peace is the United Nations. I am fully convinced that if we keep work- ing at it, the United Nations will become what it was intended to be: the parliament of man and the federation of the world. That is what we are looking forward to. In the United Nations we have pledged our honor. We have backed up our pledge with our resources and our armed might. We created the Marshall plan, and the mu- tual security program. We have created the North Atlantic Treaty, and joined it. We have entered into security arrangements in the Pacific. We have met aggression in Korea, and we have stopped it there. By these acts we have given hope and faith to those who live in the shadow of conquest, and those in the slave world of communism. By these acts we have created a company of allies, and a chain of defense to protect this beloved country of ours. But we know a lasting peace cannot be won by force alone. We know that peace must mean bread, and justice, and oppor- tunity, and freedom for all the people in the world. That is why we have pledged our aid to help other nations, to help them- selves to go forward. That is why we have launched the point 4 program. Point 4 is good business for us, and for our friends. In the underdeveloped coun- tries of the world, for them and for us, it means more trade, more markets, and more prosperity, and a better supply of raw materials. But point 4 is much more than that. Point 4 is the helping hand we extend to the farmer in Egypt, to the undernourished child in India, to the impoverished laborer in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I want to remind you of something. This country, in its developing stage, had invest- ments from Germany and France, and Holland and Great Britain, which helped us develop railroads and mines and cattle ranches. And that is one of the things that has made this country great. Now, when 506 Harry S. Truman, 1952 July 26 [218] those countries became involved in two world wars within a generation, they had to withdraw those funds and use them for their protection. We are in the position now of making the world entirely safe for democracy, if we don't crawl in the shell and act selfish and foolish. Point 4 is the way to help. Point 4 is the way that we can help people to help them- selves. Point 4 is not a giveaway program. Point 4 is something that, in the long run, will keep our production machine busy from now on, if we can just raise the standard of living of the rest of the world as much as 2 percent. We must keep this lamp alight and shin- ing, because it is a symbol to the world of our humane Americanism, of our friendship for all peoples — people of all races, of all creeds, who want to lift themselves up and build a better life for themselves and their children. Point 4 is the way to make freedom work for millions and millions of people. That is why it is one of our strongest weapons against the spread of communism. I must say to you, my friends, that when I speak of our foreign policy, I speak with great pride, for our foreign policy is one of the greatest achievements of this country — or any other country — in all the history of the world. My good friends, we have finally stepped into the leadership which Almighty God in- tended us to assume a generation ago. But the Democratic Party has a forward- looking domestic program to match its for- ward-looking foreign policy. We know that one will not work without the other. To meet our responsibilities to the world, we must have a strong and prosperous United States of America. The Democratic Party has a program for strengthening our country and improving the life of every per- son in it. We will carry on the fight for the progress of the American farmer, including strong price supports for farm products, and a soil conservation program that really works. We will carry on the fight for fair wages and good working conditions for American labor. And we will fight for the repeal of that good-for-nothing Taft-Hartley Act. It's a snare and a delusion, that Taft- Hardey thing is. It doesn't get you any- where, and it isn't going anywhere itself. We will carry on the fight for strong wage and price controls to protect the buying power of the white-collar workers, and peo- ple of fixed income. We will carry on the fight for real com- petitive enterprise against monopoly. We will carry on the fight for increased benefits and greater coverage under the so- cial security laws. We will carry on the fight for Federal aid to education, to help the States meet the crisis confronting our schools. We will carry on the fight to develop our natural resources for the benefit of all the people, and not for private monopolies. We will carry on the fight to bring decent housing within the reach of all our people at prices they can afford to pay. We will carry on the fight to bring better health to all our people. We will carry on the fight for the full pro- tection of civil rights to all of our citizens in all parts of the country, without regard to race, religion, or national origin. Now, these elements of the Democratic program are not empty promises. They are plans for action. I was elected in 1948 because the people wanted these things done. They believed that a Democratic President and a Demo- cratic administration would work for hu- man progress. And that is exactly what we have been doing. We have worked and fought to translate the hopes and dreams of the American peo- ple into reality. We have gone ahead to expand opportu- nities for young people, to help the aged and 507 [2i8] July 26 Public Papers of the Presidents afflicted, to make American homes more secure against sickness and disaster. We have opened the way to good incomes and greater freedom for all. And now — now in this year 1952, the world is moving into the atomic age. The American people know that the way to ful- fill the promise of the future is to stick with the progressive policies that have been pio- neered by the Democratic Party — this great party of ours. For the people know that we are interested not only in the next election — we are interested in the next generation. We are standing at the threshold of a new day in human history, a day when men's lives will be changed, beyond anything we can imagine, by the giant strides of science, by developments like electronics, supersonic speeds, and atomic energy. We are at the end of an era and the beginning of another. We face the greatest age in the history of the world. I wish I was 18 instead of 68 so I could see the development to its conclusion. The program that the Democratic Party faces is toward this new day. This admin- istration has been working to bring this new day into being. We have put the resources of the Government behind the development of these miracles of science. At present we must devote these new inventions in great part to defense, but if we can establish world peace — and we are going to establish it — then we can turn these new inventions to improving the lot of mankind. We can look forward to the day when the people of this land, and of all this world, will have a bet- ter life than they have ever known before. The prospects are simply fantastic and sim- ply beyond the imagination. It is God's will, I am sure, that all this new energy, all this new scientific progress and research, should be placed at man's disposal for reasons other than man's destruction. You and I are determined that they shall be used to make a better world for all of God's children — a world of peace and plenty, a world of freedom and understanding, a world of democracy and faith. We have faith in the future of the world. We have faith in the future of this great country of ours. We believe in an expand- ing America. We believe that democracy is but another name for growth. We believe in a nation — and a world — in which every living person and every child to be born may have an opportunity to grow in all ways; to grow in mind, in heart, and in body; to grow in the things of the spirit; to enjoy health and opportunity and happiness, and an in- creasing share of worldly goods; and above all else, to grow in freedom. We believe in an unlimited America. Un- like our Republican opponents, we would not limit our goals to the mere compass of our fears. Instead, we will extend our goals to match our hopes. The essence of American belief in the future is faith. We have overcome adversity and triumphed again and again over foes and fears, because we are a confident and optimistic people. Our faith will sustain us in the future, as it has in the past — if we remember to act upon it. The way to live up to our faith is by working and voting for a better and a brighter future. The touchstone of our hopes is the ballot box. It is there we affirm our belief that things can and will be better for us all. Throughout the past 20 years, in five presidential elections, millions of confident Americans have gone to their polling places and there pledged their faith in America unlimited, and in a world unrestrained by fear and force. They did that by voting the Democratic ticket, and that is exactly what they are going to do in November. [At this point, at 2:10 a.m., the President intro- duced Adlai Stevenson, Governor of Illinois.'] Please sit down. If you don't let the President-elect make his acceptance speech, you won't have any candidate, so you had better sit down. Mr. Chairman, members of the conven- tion: I have a privilege tonight that comes to very few people. It is my privilege and 508 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 6 [220] pleasure to present to you a man who was nominated for President of the United States because he was a gendeman, and a citizen of this great State of Illinois, and a great administrator, and because he would not make any deals with anybody. He was nominated on a draft. This is the first time in my recollection that we have nominated a man for President on a real, honest-to-goodness draft. He is able, capable, and will carry on the traditions of the Democratic Party in the best way they can possibly be carried on. I consider it an honor and a privilege to present to you the Honorable Adlai Steven- son, the nominee for Democratic President. note: The President's opening words "Mr. Chair- man" referred to the Honorable Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives and perma- nent chairman of the convention. 219 Statement by the President on the Death of Senator Brien McMahon. July 28, 1952 THE NATION has suffered a tremendous loss in the passing of one of its outstanding officials, Senator Brien McMahon. Senator McMahon already had distin- guished himself as a lawyer and judge be- fore he went to Washington in the mid- 1930's as an Assistant Attorney General. Seven years ago, in the midst of war, he became a United States Senator, a post in which he grew in stature with every passing year. It was as Chairman of the Joint Com- mittee on Atomic Energy that he made his greatest achievement. Senator McMahon was one of the first to see the fantastic pos- sibilities for good in the wise use of atomic power. As he conceived it, the miracle of the release of atomic energy was intended for man's everlasting benefit — not his de- struction. He worked tirelessly toward this end, and I am sure future generations will be grateful for his wisdom. I know I am grateful. And beyond his statesmanship and his humanity, there was the man himself. I shall miss Brien McMahon because he was such a good friend. note: The statement was released at Kansas City, Mo. 220 Remarks to the Delegates of Girls Nation. August 6, 1952 IT IS a very great pleasure to have you back again this year. I know you are getting some well-earned information on Govern- ment and how it works. And, you know, if you get well enough acquainted with it, when these old people now that are running the Government get out, your turn will come, and you can keep it running on an even keel. You see, we have the grandest Govern- ment in the world. There never was one like it in the history of the world. We must keep it just what it is — a government of all the people, and for all the people. And if you do that, this Republic can last — well, indefinitely, I hope — I won't make any prophecies, but it ought to con- tinue forever if we do as we should do, and remember that the welfare of our country is based on the welfare of the whole people. I hope you have had a pleasant visit here. I hope you have learned a lot about your Government, and that you will go back and teach that learning to somebody else who has not had your opportunity, and so help carry on this great Republic of ours. It is a pleasure to have you here. note: The President spoke at 12:45 P-m- m tnc Rose Garden at the White House. The delegates were in Washington attending the Sixth Girls Nation of the American Legion Auxiliary. 55-672^Q6> 509 [221] Aug. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents 221 The President's News Conference of August j, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I have a couple of statements I would like to read to you. They are all mimeographed and ready for you outside. I am not going to read them but once. [Reading] "I am very sorry to say that we have had a terrible drought situation in sev- eral States, and the Federal Government is going to do everything it can to help the farmers in those areas. "At the request of Governor Wetherby of Kentucky, and Governor Browning of Ten- nessee, I have just this morning declared these two States disaster areas, and allocated $3 million of emergency funds to buy and distribute feed to save the basic dairy and beef herds in those areas. This money will be advanced by the Housing and Home Finance Agency to the Department of Agri- culture, and will be used to distribute hay and other feed to farmers on reasonable terms. "Tennessee and Kentucky herds have been the hardest hit so far. As other States ask for help, they will get immediate considera- tion. The Department of Agriculture, un- der its own authority, has already recognized disaster conditions in 10 States, and is offer- ing credit and other assistance. "There was a time when such disasters were shrugged off as local misfortunes. We have come to understand in this country that the whole Nation loses in these circum- stances, and we must all pitch in to do what we can to help." That is the end of that statement. [2.] [Reading] "Everybody is talking about the November election these days, but it seems to me they are putting the cart before the horse. The first order of business is registration. This is something that all Americans ought to think about right away. "Americans are mighty proud of their democratic system of government, but when it comes to voting, many other countries put us to shame. In 1948, for instance, only 51 percent of the eligible voters in this country went to the polls. In the last general elec- tion in France, 75 percent of the eligibles voted; in Italy, 89 percent voted; in Canada, 75 percent; in Japan, 71 percent; in Israel, 72 percent; in Sweden, 80 percent; in Eng- land, 83 percent; and in the last election in Belgium, 90 percent of the voters went to the polls. "I am informed that as of January of this year, more than 29 million adult Americans were not even registered to vote. I think we should all be disturbed by the fact that all during this century more and more citizens are staying away from the polls. In the election of 1900, for instance, more than 73 percent of our citizens voted. In 1880 more than 78 percent of the eligibles voted. "The privilege of voting is one of the most treasured rights on earth, as those who live in totalitarian countries can testify, but we cannot have a big vote in this country with- out a big registration. "Newspapers, magazines, radio and TV, and other media can do much to enlist in- terest in this subject. So, too, can many nonpartisan organizations that exist in every community. A great decision will be made by the electorate on November 4 of this year, and I hope every American of voting age will participate in it." That surely is of vital importance. Q. Mr. President, what do you think is the reason for this low the president. Laziness and indifference. They think "George" will do it. "It will be all right, anyway. You don't need me. I would rather go on a vacation, if I have the day off, than go and vote." [3.] Q. Mr. President, there is a lot of speculation that Ellis Arnall has asked you to accept his resignation. Could you clarify that? the president. I have no comment to 510 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 7 [221] make on it.1 [4.] Q. Mr. President, could you say whether the president. I have no comment to make on it. Q. I wasn't going to ask about that. the president. I have no comment to make. Q. You don't know what I was going to ask. the president. Go on and ask. Q. Are you considering calling an extra session to consider the price control? the president. Yes, I have it under con* si deration. Q. If so, sir, at what time would that be likely the president. I say I have it under con- sideration. We'll have to wait for further developments to see whether it's necessary or not. If it's necessary, I will call one. [5.] Q. Mr. President the president. What is it? Q. I hate to ask this the president. Go ahead. [Laughter] Q. You took a good beating out in Mis- souri ■ the president. No, I didn't. No, I didn't at all. The President has a right to vote for anybody he pleases in a primary, and if the other fellow wins, the President always supports the ticket. I am just as fond of Symington as I always was, but I was in the frame of mind to vote for the other fellow, which I did; and I have that right, the same as you have, or any other citizen. And that doesn't affect my standing in the State of Missouri one little bit.2 Q. No I didn't mean that. the president. Yes, you did. 1 On August 26 the White House released the text of Ellis Arnall's resignation as Director of the Office of Price Stabilization and the President's letter of acceptance. 2 In the primary election held in Missouri on August 5, W. Stuart Symington won the Democratic nomination for Senator over J. E. "Buck" Taylor, the State Attorney General. Q. No, sir the president. That's what you are trying to do, make it appear that I have been discredited. [Laughter] Q. No, sir, not at all. the president. All right. Your question is answered. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, are you pleased with the action of the South Carolina Demo- cratic convention 3 the president. I am always pleased when the Democrats vote as they should. Q. Are you pleased with Mr. Byrnes's speech,4 saying he would vote the president. I didn't read it. Q. for Stevenson the president. I didn't read it. Q. that he would vote for Stevenson and Sparkman? the president. I am glad he has been converted. [Laughter] [7.] Q. Mr. President, have you talked to Averell Harriman at all about the New York Senate race? the president. No, I haven't. Q. Would you like to see him as the candidate against Mr. Ives? 5 the president. Well now, that is a mat- ter for Mr. Harriman himself to decide. I don't select candidates outside the State of Missouri, anyway. [Laughter] [8.] Q. Mr. President, is the price situa- tion the only thing which is causing you to give consideration to an extra session? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. That is the only the president. That is the only thing now that is causing me to consider that situation. [9.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you could clear up a little point in history for me. 3 The South Carolina State Democratic conven- tion, which met in Columbia, S.C., voted, on August 6, to support the Democratic Presidential nominee. * Governor James F. Byrnes' address opening the South Carolina convention. "Irving M. Ives, incumbent Republican Senator from New York seeking reelection. 511 [221] Aug. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. Try my best. Q. I was in Chicago when you were here considering who to support for the presi- dential nomination. We got several differ- ent reports. The first one was that you had decided to back Vice President Barkley, and another was that you decided to back Harri- man. Would you clear up that whole area in there? the president. Why, it's easily enough cleared up. The Vice President went from here expecting to be a candidate for Presi- dent. Had he been a candidate and stayed a candidate, I would have supported him. However, I think we nominated a man who can be elected — the best man we could pos- sibly pick. And that is no reflection on any of the other candidates. Q. Have you ever, sir, considered support- ing Harriman? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. You never said you would support Mr. Harriman, sir? the president. No. Mr. Harriman asked me if it would be all right for him to get the New York delegation for himself, and I said certainly, it would be all right with me for him to do whatever he pleased. [10.] Q. Mr. President, this week you saw the musical show "Porgy and Bess." I wonder if you would say whether you en- joyed it, and whether you think the Euro- peans might enjoy it? the president. I enjoyed it very much, and I know that the Europeans will enjoy it. It is an excellent show. And I would advise all of you to go see it, because you can get in on passes, I think. I can't. I have to pay my way. [Laughter'] [ii.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Spark- man 6 has written a letter to you, urging you to release a portion of the Trade Commis- sion's report on the international oil cartel. Do you plan to do so as a result of that the president. It is under consideration, and has been all the time.7 [12.] Q. Mr. President, do you know whether there is any precedent for the in- vitation you have extended to Governor Stevenson to come here on Tuesday, whether any other President in office has asked the nominee of the party to sit in on Cabinet the president. Whenever the President is to be succeeded by the nominee of his own party, he always does that. But Governor Stevenson and I had a session in Chicago, and he suggested that it would be a very fine thing for the party if we could discuss the situation. Therefore, I asked him if he wouldn't come to Washington, and he was very glad to come. Q. Discuss what situation? the president. The program for the elec- tion of the Democratic ticket. There has to be a program. Q. Mr. President, will you discuss your role in the campaign? the president. Everything that is neces- sary to make the Democrats win will be discussed. Now, you can take the whole category from start to finish and you won't have to ask me any special questions. Every- thing will be discussed that is necessary. [13.] Q. Mr. President, what has been your reaction to General Eisenhower's speeches since he has been home? the president. I have no comment to make on that. [14.] Q. Mr. President, what is your re- action to Governor Stevenson's remark about cloture, that he believes the Senate has the right to the president. I am standing on the Democratic platform. [15.] Q. Mr. President, do you think conservation will be an important issue in the campaign? 6 Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President. 7 On August 18 the President released the report, "The International Petroleum Cartel" (Government Printing Office, 1952, 378 pp.). 512 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 8 [222] the president. I certainly do. Reclama- tion and conservation, and all the farm program, will be most important in the campaign. It was in 1948, if I remember correctly. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's three hundred and eleventh news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 7, 1952. 222 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission, on the Administration of the Federal Employee Security Programs. August 8, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: On July 14, 195 1, 1 requested the National Security Council to make an investigation of the administration of Federal employee security programs relating to the denial of employment and the suspension and removal of employees in the interest of national security. Pursuant to that request, a study was made by the Interdepartmental Com- mittee on Internal Security. Its report, pre- pared in collaboration with the staff of the Civil Service Commission, has been sub- mitted to me by the National Security Council. This report recommends that certain uni- form standards and procedures be estab- lished to apply to all agencies where em- ployee security programs are in effect. It also recommends that provision be made for Civil Service Commission review of agency decisions in security risk cases. In addition, the Interdepartmental Com- mittee on Internal Security, in transmitting its report to the National Security Council, called attention to the confused situation which exists by reason of there being three general programs dealing with the denial of employment and the suspension and sepa- ration of Government employees. These general programs were described by the Committee as relating to loyalty, security, and suitability under civil service regula- tions, respectively, and the Committee pointed out that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to draw clear lines of de- marcation among them. In order to elimi- nate this confusion, the Committee recom- mended that a study be made to effect a single general program covering eligibility for employment in the Federal service, whether on grounds of loyalty, security, or suitability. It is my understanding that the Civil Service Commission agrees with this proposal. I have given considerable thought to the recommendations contained in this report. I have concluded that the most desirable action at this time would be to merge the loyalty, security, and suitability programs, thus eliminating the overlapping, duplica- tion, and confusion which apparently now exist. It is my understanding that the status of the incumbent employees loyalty program is now so advanced that there would be little or no obstacle to accomplish- ing this from the standpoint of the future needs of that phase of the loyalty program. Accordingly, I should like for the Civil Serv- ice Commission to take the necessary steps to provide me with a plan for combining the three existing programs into one at the earliest practicable date. To achieve this end, I am directing all Executive depart- ments and agencies to cooperate fully with the Commission and to furnish the Commis- sion with such personnel and other assistance as it may require. Pending action to merge the existing three programs, it does not seem advisable to issue an Executive Order establishing uniform standards and procedures comprising an over-all Government employee security pro- gram, with provision for Civil Service Com- mission review of agency decisions. Such 513 [222] Aug. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents an Executive Order would presumably have only temporary effect, since it would be superseded shortly by the new program I am requesting the Commission to prepare. I believe we can utilize our efforts most effec- tively by going straight to what we regard as the best solution. In the meantime, however, departments and agencies having employee security pro- grams should reexamine their procedures in the light of the findings and recommenda- tions of the Interdepartmental Committee. The Committee's report contains a great deal of worthwhile material which should pro- vide valuable guidance for those responsible for the formulation and administration of personnel security procedures, and which should assist them in assuring adequate pro- cedural safeguards for the protection of all personnel who are subject to employee security programs. I am sending copies of this letter and the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security to the heads of all Ex- ecutive departments and agencies. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Robert Ramspeck, Chairman of the Civil Service Commission] note: "A Report by the Interdepartmental Commit- tee on Internal Security on the Government Em- ployee Security Program as Submitted to the Presi- dent by the National Security Council" (35 pp., plus indexes, processed) was released with the President's letter. For the President's letter of July 14, 1951, re- questing the National Security Council to make a study of the employee security program, see 1951 volume, this series, Item 156. See also Item 223, this volume. 223 Memorandum on the Federal Employee Security Programs. August 8, 1952 To the heads of all executive departments and agencies: I am sending you a copy of a letter I have addressed today to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, together with a copy of a report on Federal employee security pro- grams which has been prepared by the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security. On the recommendation of the Interde- partmental Committee and other interested Government agencies, I have requested the Civil Service Commission to prepare a plan for a single general program covering eligi- bility for employment in the Federal service, whether on grounds of loyalty, security, or suitability. To help the Commission in pre- paring this plan, all Executive departments and agencies are authorized and directed to cooperate fully with the Commission and to furnish it with such personnel and other assistance as it may require. Each department and agency having an employee security program should give care- ful study to the report of the Interdepart- mental Committee and should reexamine its own program in the light of that report with a view to making sure that adequate proce- dural safeguards are provided. Harry S. Truman note: See also Item 222. 514 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 13 [225] 224 Remarks Following a Meeting at the White House With Governor Stevenson and Senator Sparkman. August 12, 1952 GOVERNOR, it has been a pleasure to have you and the Senator here and have you meet all the staff, and to see the White House that you will occupy after the 4th — the 20th day of January — I almost gave you 2 months there. The meeting has been very satisfactory from my viewpoint. We have discussed var- ious things. The details will be worked out at a later date, but I think we are both happy and satisfied that the meeting took place. I am sure that I am. note: The President spoke to members of the press at 4 p.m. outside his ofrce at the White House. Governor Adlai Stevenson stated that he had "had a very pleasant opportunity to lunch with the President and members of the Cabinet." He added that he and Senator Sparkman appreciated the opportunity for a briefing on the international situa- tion, and that they were glad to talk with the President about the campaign. He stated that he was deeply grateful to the President for his offer of cooperation. The text of brief remarks by Senator John Spark- man was also released. 225 Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Tax Benefits of the Shipping Industry. August 13, 1952 [Released August 13, 1952. Dated August it, 1952] My dear Mr. Secretary: As you know, the Congress passed in the closing days of the recent session S.241 — the so-called "Long-Range Shipping Bill" — which I approved on July 17, 1952, and which is now P.L. 586, 82nd Congress. In approving this bill, I issued a statement ex- pressing certain reservations with regard to its provisions. In particular, I pointed out that this legislation does not provide a balanced readjustment of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, since it does not include any provisions to adjust existing tax benefits of the shipping industry. The tax treatment accorded this industry under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 has been the subject of recent studies by both the Treasury Department and the Depart- ment of Commerce. After considering these studies, I have indicated on several occasions my strong view that the tax benefits now enjoyed by the shipping industry are excessive in amount. I have further stated that tax concessions are in themselves a basically unsound means of assisting the maritime industry, and that they should be replaced as soon as possible with whatever form and amount of direct aid may actually be required to achieve our national objec- tives with regard to promotion of this industry. I have received assurances from the chair- men of the legislative committees which handled S. 241 that the subject of maritime tax benefits will be considered promptly upon the convening of the next session of the Congress. I desire! that the executive branch furnish the Congress with all further information needed to permit a complete correction of the present maritime tax situa- tion. Accordingly, I should like to have you revise your report of March 8, 195 1, in order to bring it up-to-date, and to include any new or altered factors which may have a bearing on this problem. I am at the same time asking the Secre- tary of Commerce to undertake a study to determine whether the complete elimination 515 [225] Aug. 13 Public Papers of the Presidents of existing tax benefits would require some increase in direct subsidy for this industry. A copy of my letter to the Secretary of Com- merce is attached for your information. In order that these studies may provide the basis for prompt legislative recommenda- tions to the new Congress, I am requesting that they be submitted to me by October 15, 1952. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable John W. Snyder, The Secretary of the Treasury] note: The report of March 8, 1951, is entitled "Scope and Effect of Tax Benefits Provided in the Maritime Industry" and was prepared by the De- partment of the Treasury in consultation with the Department of Commerce. It is printed in House Document 213 (82d Cong., 1st sess.). A letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, dated January 16, x953> relating to tax deferment and tax exemption benefits to the maritime industry, together with the 1952 reports of the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Treasury, were released by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and printed by the Government Printing Office (i953>i70PP.)- See also Items 211, 226. 226 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on the Tax Benefits of the Shipping Industry. August 13, 1952 [ Released August 13, 1952. Dated August 11, 1952 ] My dear Mr, Secretary: As you know, the Congress passed in the closing days of the recent session S. 241 — the so-called "Long-Range Shipping Bill" — which I approved on July 17, 1952, and which is now P.L. 586, 82nd Congress. In approving this bill, I issued a statement ex- pressing certain reservations with regard to its provisions. In particular, I pointed out that this legislation does not provide a bal- anced readjustment of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, since it does not include any provisions to adjust existing tax benefits of the shipping industry. The tax treatment accorded this industry under the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 has been the subject of recent studies by both the Treasury Department and the Depart- ment of Commerce. After considering these studies, I have indicated on several occasions my strong view that the tax benefits now enjoyed by the shipping industry are exces- sive in amount. I have further stated that tax concessions are in themselves a basically unsound means of assisting the maritime in- dustry, and that they should be replaced as soon as possible with whatever form and amount of direct aid may actually be re- quired to achieve our national objectives with regard to promotion of this industry. I have received assurances from the chair- men of the legislative committees which han- dled S. 241 that the subject of maritime tax benefits will be considered promptly upon the convening of the next session of the Con- gress. I desire that the executive branch furnish the Congress with all further infor- mation needed to permit a complete correc- tion of the present maritime tax situation. I am therefore asking the Secretary of the Treasury to bring his previous report on this subject up-to-date, and to include any new or altered factors which have a bearing on this problem. At the same time, I should like to have the Department of Commerce undertake a study to determine whether the complete elimination of present tax benefits would require any increase in direct subsidy for this industry. Since tax benefits represent only one of the many forms of assistance now provided to the shipping industry, your study will neces- sarily involve a critical re-evaluation of the over-all scope of existing Federal aid, and of its relation to a sound promotional objective for this industry. It will of course be neces- 516 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 14 [227] sary to keep in mind the basic importance of maintaining an adequate maritime fleet for our national defense and foreign trade, and the need for keeping such a fleet modern and efficient through an orderly vessel re- placement program. Equally important, however, is the general need for holding all Federal expenditures to their minimum es- sential level. This overriding need for econ- omy requires a careful determination of the minimum amount of Federal financial aid that will assure a merchant fleet of adequate size and quality. In particular, your study should take full account of whatever opportunities may exist for the industry itself to increase its operat- ing efficiency and generally to improve its financial position. If changes in present Federal policies are needed to permit the industry to take maximum advantage of such opportunities, please include appro- priate recommendations for that purpose in your study. Should you conclude, after con- sidering all of these factors, that some in- crease in direct subsidy would be required with the elimination of existing tax benefits, I would wish to receive your recommenda- tions as to the amount, and most suitable form, of such increased subsidy. I am attaching for your information a copy of the letter which I am sending at this time to the Secretary of the Treasury. In order that these studies may provide the basis for prompt legislative recommenda- tions to the new Congress, I am requesting that they be submitted to me by October 15, 1952. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Charles Sawyer, The Secretary of Commerce] note: See also Items 211, 225. 227 Message to Dwight D. Eisenhower Inviting Him to a Luncheon and Briefing at the White House. August 14, 1952 [ Released August 14, 1952. Dated August 13, 1952 ] I WOULD be most happy if you would at- tend a Cabinet luncheon next Tuesday the nineteenth. If you want to bring your press secretary and any other member of your staff I'll be glad to have them. If you can arrive at about twelve fifteen I'll have General Smith and the Central Intelligence Agency give you a complete briefing on the foreign situation. Then we will have luncheon with the Cabinet and after that if you like I'll have my entire staff report to you on the situation in the White House and in that way you will be entirely briefed on what takes place. I've made arrangements with the Central Intelligence Agency to furnish you once a week with the world situation as I also have for Governor Stevenson. Harry S. Truman note: The text of General Eisenhower's reply, dated August 14, follows: Dear Mr. President: Thank you for your offer to have me briefed by certain agencies of the Government on the foreign situation. On the personal side I am also grateful for your luncheon invitation. In my current position as standard bearer of the Republican Party and of other Americans who want to bring about a change in the National Government, it is my duty to remain free to analyze publicly the policies and acts of the present administration when- ever it appears to me to be proper and in the country's interests. During the present period the people are deciding our country's leadership for the next four years. The decision rests between the Republican nominee and the candidate you and your Cabinet are sup- porting and with whom you conferred before sending your message. In such circumstances and in such a period I believe our communications should be only those which are known to all the American 517 [227] Aug. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents people. Consequently I think it would be unwise and result in confusion in the public mind if I were to attend the meeting in the White House to which you have invited me. As you know, the problems which you suggest for discussion are those with which I have lived for many years. In spite of this I would instantly change this decision in the event there should arise a grave emergency. There is nothing in your mes- sage to indicate that this is presently the case. With respect to the weekly reports from the Cen- tral Intelligence Agency that you kindly offered to send me, I will welcome these reports. In line with my view, however, that the American people are entitled to all the facts in the international situation, save only in those cases where the security of the United States is involved, I would want it under- stood that the possession of these reports will in no other way limit my freedom to discuss or analyze foreign programs as my judgment dictates. Very respectfully, Dwight D. Eisenhower See also Item 228 [3] . 228 The President's News Conference of August 14, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] On the 14th of August I wrote a letter to Mr. Junius Wood of Holland, Michi- gan, about the Minerva clock and the Han- nibal clock, and also about the scattering of the antique White House furniture.1 I thought maybe you might be interested in it. Copies will be available to you, if you want them. And I would be glad for every one of you to take a look at them. It has got some historical information in it that you might be interested in. [2.] Q. Mr. President, before we get around to weightier subjects, the Arkansas Gazette has asked me to inquire about your reaction on the defeat of Governor Sid McMath in the primary? 2 the president. No comment. Tell the Arkansas Gazette I have no comment. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, where do we stand now on this exchange of messages between you and General Eisenhower? 3 Is there anything more to be said? the president. Well, I think probably it might be well for me to give you the back- ground on that situation. Some 10 days ago about, maybe — might 1 See Item 229. 2 In the run-off primary held in Arkansas on August 12, Judge Francis Cherry defeated incumbent Sidney S. McMath for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. 3 See Item 227. have been a longer or a shorter time — I dis- cussed with the Central Intelligence Agency the propriety of keeping the presidential can- didates informed on the situation around the world. And we arrived at a conclusion that it would be a good plan to brief each one of them, in the first place, and then furnish them with the information at regular inter- vals. Most of this information is not for general distribution, and it cannot be used publicly because it is top secret and is secu- rity information. I asked the Governor of Illinois to come and be briefed,4 and then asked the candidate of the Republican Party to come and get the same sort of treatment. You know the rest. No comment on my part is necessary any further. I would like very much, though, to have each one of you familiarize your- selves with a Senate document. It is Senate Document 87. It was issued on October the 20th, 1 95 1, by the Foreign Relations Com- mittee of the United States Senate. It is a unanimous report on the bipartisan foreign policy, and the history of the operations of that policy almost from its beginning. You can get some very good information out of that document. Q. Mr. President, I think one thing that is left hanging is whether General Eisen- hower will get the CIA reports? 4 See Item 224. 518 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 14 [228] the president. He will get the same re- ports that the Governor gets. [4.] Q. Mr. President, 8 months have now transpired since Gen. Mark Clark asked that his name be withdrawn as Ambassador to the Vatican. The position has remained vacant, and I wonder if you intend to make a recess appointment, or let it go over for your successor to decide in January? the president. The matter will not be considered at this time. I have no further comment to make on it. [Pause'] What's the matter? Have you gone so political that you can't ask questions any more ? [ Laugh ter ] [5.] Q. Mr. President the president. What is it? Q. have your plans for private life jelled yet? the president. Oh, no. They are in the making all the time. I am going to have the best time any man ever had, when I get out of here. You watch. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, since acceptance of the Labor Day speech invitation in Mil- waukee, do you expect later to make a special appeal or speech to the farmers the president. Well, that is a matter that will be worked out as we go along. The Governor and I did not discuss details individually. We discussed the Labor Day meetings at Milwaukee and Detroit, and decided that those meetings ought to be held. Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility that you will reconsider the invitation to the National Ploughing the president. What? Q. The invitation to the National Plough- ing Contest? the president. I have not received that invitation yet, I don't think. Of course I will give it consideration if it comes. Had quite a time out there with about 96,000 people. I think there were 10 acres of them, if I'm not mistaken. [7.] Q. Mr. President, there was one thing I am not clear on, and that is when General Eisenhower was sent the invitation ? the president. The telegram went to him the day before yesterday, but he had been informed that he would be receiving the information that the Governor did, sometime before that, by the Defense Department. Mr. Short: 5 Mr. President, General Eisenhower received that telegram at 9:17 a.m. Denver time yesterday. the president. It was yesterday. The formal invitation went forward in the tele- gram that I sent. Q. Did you say he had been told ahead of time? the president. He had been told by the Defense Department that he would receive any information about the foreign situation in which he was interested. Q. Could you tell me when he was told that? the president. Oh, I don't know. About a week ago, I reckon. I discussed it with the Secretary of Defense and with the CIA a week or 10 days ago. [8.] Q. Mr. President, the CIO News of this week had a list of eight Senators that they regarded as the worst enemies of labor, including Senator Cain from Washington. I wonder if he was included on your list of those you would most like to see replaced this fall? the president. I want to see Democrats elected everywhere. I have no special pick on anybody. [9.] Q. Mr. President, have your plans jelled on calling a special session of Congress ? the president. They have not. That's a good word. [10.] Q. Mr. President, regarding your future plans. Since the point 4 program has been identified with your administra- tion, I wonder if it would be of continued interest to you after you leave the White House, and whether you think that it is 5 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. 519 [228] Aug. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents a program that both parties could support? In other words the president. Did you ever know a fire horse after 30 years of service that did not want to go to a fire when there was one going on ? [ Laugh ter ] Q. Mr. President, I lost the question the president. He just wanted to know if I was going to be interested in politics after I got through here, and of course I am. Q. I was referring particularly to point 4. the president. I will be interested in everything the Government is doing. Don't worry about that. And I think I know how to approach most of them, after all this experience. [11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if — in your campaign speaking this fall — if you plan to do any train-riding? the president. I don't know. I will let you know in plenty of time, so that you can get your transportation and get your bags packed, if you want to go. I am going to do what the National Democratic Committee wants me to do. [12.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisen- hower indicated that he believed it would be unwise to accept your invitation, because he didn't want to have any communications with you that were not known to the Ameri- can people. Did you plan to have any private conversation with him? the president. None whatever. Any- thing I say to him he is at liberty to quote. He has quoted a great many things already, some of it kind of garbled, but it's all right. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, on that point, what did you think of the statement General Eisen- hower issued — let's see, it would be day be- fore yesterday — in which he criticized Gov- ernor Stevenson sitting in on the briefing? I have forgotten just what the General's lan- guage was, but it was rather a harsh state- ment. What did you think of that the president. Well, now, let's let that rest for a while, and when the campaign gets to rolling pretty good, I think your question will be answered without much trouble. I don't want to get into any controversy with either one of the candidates for President. I am trying to help one beat the other, and that is what I hope to do. [Pause] Q. Do you have anything else you want to tell us? the president. No. [Laughter] Reporter: Well, thank you, sir. note: President Truman's three hundred and twelfth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, August 14, 1952. 229 Letter to Junius B. Wood on the Minerva Clock and Other Antique White House Furnishings. August 14, 1952 Dear Mr. Wood: I have the exact information on the Mi- nerva clock from the archives of the White House. It was not purchased for Thomas Jefferson by Monroe but was bought by Monroe himself when he was President. The bill in payment of the purchase was approved May 4, 181 8 by Monroe himself. I have his signature on the document which contained the bill not only for the Minerva clock but for various pieces of furniture. There is also another clock, which is under the picture of John Quincy Adams, known as the Hannibal clock. It also is of ancient vintage, comparatively, in our young Nation and is part of the original furnishings of the White House. It is tragic what has happened to the won- derful old pieces of furniture which were bought by the early Presidents. Except for the Blue Room suite there is not a single stick of that original furniture left and the two clocks to which I refer, along with a number of clocks in the various bedrooms, are the only early pieces that are left. We have the Lincoln bed, dresser and full 520 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 15 [230] length mirror in mahogany which were ap- parently made especially for Lincoln. There is a little marble top table in the Lincoln room which is supposed to have been the piece on which he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I found four of Lincoln's Cabinet chairs in the attic of the Treasury Building with parts of them broken and the upholstery mouse-eaten. I had them up- holstered in the colors which were supposed to have been used in the Lincoln Cabinet Room. When the White House was reno- vated the interior decorator reupholstered these chairs in black, which should not have been done. If you will get a copy of the Gazette des Beaux-Arts for January 1946 you will get some interesting information about what has happened to the White House furniture. I've been told, although I have no documents to prove it, that one of the Presidents cleaned out the attic of the White House and had an auction on the Pennsylvania Avenue side and scattered many wonderful antique pieces from one end of the country to the other, and they can't be found. It is like the chandeliers in the East Room. All three of the original chandeliers are down in the Capitol — one is in the office of the Secretary of the Senate, one is in the Ways and Means Committee Room of the House and the other one is in the room in which the Naval Affairs Committee formerly met in the Senate Office Building. I tried to get these chandeliers back and put them where they were before McKim, Mead and White and Teddy Roosevelt gave them away. I had the three monstrosities that replaced the beautiful chandeliers remodeled and they do not look quite as terrible as they did be- fore the house was renovated. There is one thing certain — none of these pieces in the White House are now in danger of being completely destroyed as they were before the renovation took place. We have been slowly and gradually col- lecting samples of the chinaware and glass- ware with which the House was furnished. Monroe bought some very fine decanters and glasses to go with them made of blue cut glass. Not a single piece of this pur- chase can be found anywhere, although we do have samples of most of the chinaware which the various Presidents used. We have no sample of Monroe's chinaware. The only reason I am going into some detail is that you apparently are interested, just as I am, in the White House. Very few people have been. Even those who have occupied it have taken it as a matter of course and have not paid much attention to pieces of historical value. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. Junius B. Wood, Woodcote, Route 4, Holland, Michigan] note: Mr. Wood had written to the President on May 6 after having seen a televised tour of the White House in which the President commented on the Minerva clock. Mr. Wood stated in his letter that the clock was believed to have been acquired during the Polk administration. The President replied on May 14, expressing his belief that Monroe had given the clock to Jefferson, but adding that the history of the clock would be checked and the facts sent to Mr. Wood. At his news conference of August 14 (see Item 228 [1]), the President distributed to the press copies of his second letter to Mr. Wood. In the letter he referred to McKim, Mead and White, the architectural firm in charge of renovating the White House in 1902. 230 Remarks to Delegates to a CIO-PAC Rally. August 15, 1952 I CERTAINLY appreciate that statement, Phil. I have of course tried to be fair to every segment of this population of ours. That is what Fair Deal means. I don't think in the history of the country, or any other country, for that matter, has there been 521 [230] Aug. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents an approach to a fair distribution of the economic good things as are in effect today. And that hasn't been brought about by acci- dent. And I did not come here to brag about what has been accomplished in this period for which I have been the responsible head of the Government of the United States. I just handed to Phil and Jack the legisla- tive record of the Fair Deal administration, and it is really a remarkable one — I was sur- prised at it myself, when I got it put together. I want to say to you people that I saw on the front page of just one metropolitan daily what you had done and said about the Democratic platform and what the Demo- cratic Party stands for. I didn't find that on the front pages of the largest number of metropolitan dailies — I found it on the third or the back page, or one of those places. And that is the situation with which we are faced. If you remember, in 1948, 87 percent of the medium — what they call the free press — was in the other corner, and it became neces- sary for the candidate to see that the majority of the people knew the facts and the truth. Now we are going to be faced with exacdy the same situation this time, and with your help, and with the help of the people who believe in right for everybody, we are going to do exactly again what we did in 1948, and we are going to make them like it. We have an honorable man and a pro- gressive man as the candidate for the election by the Democrats. We have a platform — as you said in your endorsement — which is as liberal and as forward-looking as any plat- form that any party has ever adopted. And if you remember the record to which I re- ferred awhile ago, I don't believe that plat- forms are scraps of paper; I think they are something to live up to and fight for when you go out and get elected on them, and that is exacdy the policy I have followed. I hope you have had a successful meeting here, and that your meetings will continue to be successful. I think this organization has made a contribution to the welfare of the country, and I know that that is just exactly what it is going to keep on doing. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:35 P-ni. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening remarks he referred to Philip Murray, president of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, who had introduced the President to the assembly as "the greatest friend that labor has had in my lifetime." Later the President referred to Jack Kroll, director of the Political Action Committee of the CIO. 231 Statement by the President Reviewing the 1953 Budget. August 19, 1952 THIS REVIEW sets forth the changes in the Budget of the United States for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1953, which have taken place since it was originally transmitted to the Congress last January. It is a reappraisal of the Government's financial program for the fiscal year 1953. Budget receipts are now estimated at $68.7 billion, $2.3 billion less than was estimated in January. Budget expenditures are now estimated at $79.0 billion, $6.4 billion less than was esti- mated in January. On the basis of these revised figures, a budget deficit of $10.3 billion is now in prospect for the fiscal year 1953. This is $4.1 billion lower than was estimated in January. Almost 85 percent of the estimated receipts for the fiscal year 1953 will come from direct taxes on corporations and individuals. Di- rect taxes on corporations are now expected to yield $24.8 billion, $3.0 billion less than was estimated in January. The revision is the result of a lower estimate of corporation profits for the calendar years 1951 and 1952, and added experience with the provisions of the Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950 and the 522 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 19 [231] BUDGET TOTALS (Fiscal years. In billions) 1953 estimated Receipts Expenditures Surplus (+) or Deficit (— ). 1951 actual $48.1 44.6 +3.5 1952 actual $62.1 66.1 -4.0 January $71.0 85.4 -14.4 Revised $68.7 79.0 -10.3 Revenue Act of 195 1. It is now estimated that direct taxes on individuals will yield $33.5 billion, about $500 million more than was estimated in January. The revised estimate of budget receipts for 1953 is $6.6 billion higher than actual receipts for 1952, an increase of more than 10 percent. Nearly 74 percent of total budget expendi- tures in the fiscal year 1953 will be for six major national security programs — military services, international security and foreign relations, atomic energy, defense production and economic stabilization, civil defense, and maritime activities. It is now estimated that expenditures for these programs will be $58.2 billion as compared to the January estimate of $65.1 billion. An additional 14 percent, or $10.9 billion, will be for interest and veterans' benefits. The remaining 12 percent, or $9.9 billion, will be for all other activities of the Government. New Obligational Authority New obligational authority for the fiscal year 1953 — the sum total of all new authority to incur financial obligations on behalf of the Government — is now estimated at $80.9 billion. Of this amount, the Congress has already enacted $79.1 billion, and $1.8 billion is proposed for later transmission. In the budget, it was estimated that $84.3 billion in new obligational authority would be needed for the fiscal year 1953. How- ever, because of subsequent amendments to the budget and congressional changes in the legislative proposals on which the original estimate was based, the amount actually re- quested of the Congress was $86.0 billion. The Congress reduced this amount by $6.9 billion. Major reductions included $4.9 bil- lion in the funds for the military functions of the Department of Defense and foreign military assistance, $557 million in the funds for civil defense, $314 million in the funds for atomic energy, $112 million in the funds for foreign economic assistance, and $183 million in the funds for development of land and water resources. Of the $1.8 billion in new obligational authority proposed for later transmission to the Congress, nearly f 1.5 billion is to pay the costs of recendy enacted legislation. The major items to be transmitted later are $800 million for combat duty pay and mustering out pay for members of the Armed Forces, $514 million for increases in veterans' serv- ices and benefits, and $315 million for in- creased Federal contributions to the States for public assistance. The total also includes a contingency reserve of $125 million, to cover the cost of claims, judgments, and other items for which specific amounts cannot now be determined. Major Changes in Estimated Expenditures Major changes resulting in the net reduc- tion of $6.4 billion from the January estimate are as follows: 1. Expenditures for military services, in- cluding foreign military assistance, are ex- pected to be $6.3 billion lower, because of reductions in appropriations and some slow- 523 [231] Aug. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents ing of military production resulting from the work stoppage in the steel industry. 2. Because the new obligational authority enacted for foreign economic assistance and other programs was substantially lower than anticipated in January, expenditures for in- ternational security and foreign relations are expected to be $437 million lower. 3. A reappraisal of the amount of funds needed for production expansion programs financed under the Defense Production Act and substantial reductions in appropriations for price, wage, and rent controls have re- sulted in a downward revision of $458 mil- lion in estimated expenditures for finance, commerce, and industry. 4. Expenditures for education and general research are expected to be $361 million lower, because the January figure included funds for carrying out proposed legislation providing for aid to elementary and second- ary schools and for loans and scholarships to college students, which was not enacted. 5. Expenditures for general government are expected to be $231 million lower, partly because the January figure anticipated an appropriation to begin amortizing the Gov- ernment's accrued liability to the Civil Serv- ice retirement and disability trust fund, which was not enacted, and partly because appropriations for other general govern- ment programs were reduced. 6. Expenditures for veterans' services and benefits are expected to be $282 million higher, because of recently enacted legisla- tion which increased readjustment benefits and compensation and pensions. 7. Farm price support loans and purchases are expected to be substantially higher than was anticipated in January, with the result that the revised figure on expenditures for agriculture and agricultural resources is $326 million higher. 8. Because of a further expansion of the atomic energy program recommended and approved after the budget was transmitted in January, expenditures for natural re- sources are expected to be $407 million higher. 9. Inasmuch as the postal rate increases recommended in the budget were not en- acted, the postal deficit is now expected to be $135 million higher than was estimated in January. As a result of this increase, as well as larger highway grants to the States and higher maritime expenditures than had been anticipated, expenditures for transpor- tation and communication are now expected to be $220 million higher. The following sections discuss in greater detail the major changes in estimated ex- penditures for 1953 by function. The re- vised figures are based on new obligational authority already enacted, anticipated sup- plemental appropriations which will be sub- mitted to the next session of Congress, and amendments to the budget which have been made since January. Military Services In this review, the expenditure figure for military services includes estimated expendi- tures for foreign military assistance. Nor- mally, these estimated expenditures would be included in the international security and foreign relations category, but this review does not attempt to separate them from the overall figure for military procurement and production. The requirements of the for- eign military assistance program and those of our own military establishment are met out of our total military output. Although it is possible to make a fairly accurate esti- mate of total expenditures for military pro- curement and production, it is not possible at this time to forecast how these expenditures will be divided between the two programs, because allocations of military equipment be- tween our own Armed Forces and those of our allies will be affected not only by the continuation of hostilities in Korea, but also by the varying impact of the recent work stoppage in the steel industry on the produc- tion of individual military end items. In any case, however, deliveries of military equipment to our allies in the fiscal year 1953 are expected to be very substantially larger than in 1952. 524 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 19 [231] Expenditures for military services, includ- ing foreign military assistance, are now estimated at $52.9 billion in the fiscal year 1953. This is $6.3 billion less than was estimated in January. The revised figure is based on the follow- ing factors: 1. New obligational authority enacted for the military functions of the Department of Defense and foreign military assistance was $4.9 billion less than the amount recom- mended to the Congress. 2. The rate of military production and construction is expected to be somewhat slower until the required amounts of steel for military purposes are once more available. 3. The total cost of recendy enacted mili- tary pay legislation will be substantially higher than was estimated in January, be- cause the legislation included provisions for mustering out pay and combat duty pay, which were not anticipated in the budget. Most of the expenditures in the military services category are for the military func- tions of the Department of Defense. The rate of these expenditures is expected to reach a peak in the latter part of the fiscal year 1953, and then level off for a time before moving to lower levels as the peak require- ments of major procurement programs are met. Military personnel costs for 1953 are now estimated at $12.0 billion, $1.0 billion more than was estimated in January and $1.2 bil- lion more than was spent for this purpose in 1952. The upward revision of the 1953 figure is due to the fact that the total costs of recently enacted military pay legislation will be higher than anticipated. A supple- mental appropriation of $800 million will be needed for combat duty pay and mustering out pay. The increase over 1952 reflects the planned expansion of our armed strength to the goal of 3.7 million men, and the full-year effect of the military pay increase, which was effective for only the last 2 months of the fiscal year 1952. Expenditures for the maintenance and op- eration of defense installations and equip- ment are now estimated at $11.1 billion, $1.0 billion less than was estimated in January. The reduction is due largely to the fact that appropriations for this purpose were $1.3 billion less than recommended to the Con- gress. If fighting in Korea continues, it may be necessary to request additional funds later in the year. Expenditures for major procurement and production, including foreign military as- sistance, are now estimated at $23.0 billion, $5.0 billion less than was estimated in Jan- uary. The revised figure is based upon a reappraisal of the volume of anticipated military production in the fiscal year 1953. The increase of $8.9 billion over actual ex- penditures in 1952 anticipates a substantial increase in our output of aircraft, tanks, ships, field artillery, ammunition, guided missiles, trucks, and other military equip- ment. Expenditures for all other Defense De- partment military functions are now esti- mated at $5.7 billion, which is about $1.2 billion less than was estimated in January and f 1.3 billion more than was spent for these purposes in 1952. The downward re- vision of the January estimate reflects a reappraisal of the rate of progress in the military public works program. The in- crease over 1952 is largely in the fields of research and development and military public works. Expenditures for the stockpiling of stra- tegic and critical materials are now estimated at $1.0 billion, fioo million less than was estimated in January. The downward re- vision is due largely to a reevaluation of the availability of stockpile materials, a decline in prices of some materials since the January estimate was made, and revisions of the purchase schedule for 1953. International Security and Foreign Relations Expenditures for international security and foreign relations, excluding foreign mili- tary assistance, are now estimated at $2.4 billion in the fiscal year 1953. This is $437 million less than was estimated in January. 525 [231] Aug. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents Most of the reduction occurs in foreign economic assistance. Because the appropria- tions for this program were substantially less than was anticipated in January, expendi- tures are now estimated at $2.1 billion, $381 million less than was estimated in the budget. Expenditures for the conduct of foreign affairs are now estimated at $264 million, $56 million lower than was estimated in Jan- uary. The decrease is due principally to reductions in appropriations for the informa- tion program and for salaries and expenses. Finance, Commerce, and Industry For finance, commerce, and industry pro- grams in 1953, expenditures are now esti- mated at $375 million, less than half of the amount estimated in January. Most of the reduction is due to a re- appraisal of the amount of funds necessary for the production expansion programs financed under the Defense Production Act. Several previously planned projects were eliminated, and more accurate estimates of the working capital requirements and net ultimate cost of the programs were made, with the result that it was unnecessary to request the additional $900 million in bor- rowing authority anticipated in January. Expenditures for the production expansion programs — including administrative ex- penses— are now estimated at $267 million as compared to the January estimate of $654 million. Expenditures for price, wage, and rent controls are now estimated at $62 million, as compared to the January estimate of $149 million. The Congress made substantial re- ductions in appropriations for these pro- grams, and specified that they should be ended on April 30, 1953. Transportation and Communication Expenditures for transportation and com- munication programs are now estimated at $1.9 billion. The increase of $220 million over the January figure results mainly from the fact that the postal deficit is now ex- pected to be higher than anticipated, and 526 highway and maritime expenditures are also expected to be higher. A postal deficit of $579 million is now in prospect for 1953. This is $135 million higher than was estimated in January, chiefly because the postal rate increases rec- ommended in the budget were not enacted. As a result of increased highway construc- tion, Federal-aid highway grants to the States are expected to be about $40 million higher than was anticipated in January. Since the amount enacted to liquidate these obligations was less than the budget recom- mendation, a supplemental appropriation of about $115 million will be needed for this purpose. Additional funds also will be needed for the construction of access roads to defense installations. Expenditures for promotion of the mer- chant marine are now estimated at $225 mil- lion, $ 61 million higher than was estimated in January. This change results primarily from the fact that the National Shipping Authority will operate fewer vessels than had been anticipated, with a consequent re- duction in the amount of net operating revenues available to offset expenditures for other maritime activities. Natural Resources Expenditures for natural resources — in- cluding atomic energy — are now estimated at $3.6 billion, $407 million more than was estimated in January and $706 million more than was spent in 1952. The increase in both instances is due pri- marily to a further expansion of the atomic energy program recommended and ap- proved after the budget was transmitted in January. As a result of this further ex- pansion, expenditures for atomic energy in 1953 are now estimated at $2.3 billion, $525 million more than was estimated in Janu- ary and $652 million more than was spent in 1952. For land and water resources — including power — expenditures are now estimated at $1.1 billion, $105 million less than was esti- mated in January. The reduction is due pri- Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 19 [231] marily to reductions in appropriations for Bureau of Reclamation programs, for Corps of Engineers flood control and multipurpose projects, and for development of Indian land and water resources. Agriculture and Agricultural Resources Expenditures for agriculture and agricul- tural resources in the fiscal year 1953 are now estimated at $1.8 billion, $326 million more than was estimated in January and $762 million more than was spent in 1952. The higher estimate for 1953 and the in- crease over 1952 are due largely to an antici- pated increase in expenditures for farm price support. During the fiscal year 1952, the Commodity Credit Corporation sold more price support commodities than it acquired, and ended the year with net receipts of $139 million. During the fiscal year 1953, how- ever, it is expected that higher production from the 1952 crops will increase the national carryover, primarily of wheat, and that the Corporation, through loans and purchases, will add substantial amounts of price sup- port commodities to its inventories. Expenditures for farm ownership and operation loans are expected to be $239 mil- lion, $31 million more than was estimated in January. The higher estimate is due to ^an anticipated increase in net crop and livestock loans discounted by the Federal intermediate credit banks, and an antici- pated increase in Farmers' Home Adminis- tration loans to finance crop production and to help reestablish farmers suffering from flood damage, drought, and other natural disasters. Labor For labor programs, expenditures in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at $248 million, $2 million more than was estimated in Janu- ary. Three-fourths of the total is for grants to States to pay for administrative costs of public employment offices and unemploy- ment compensation. The revised estimate for 1953 includes ex- penditures from an anticipated supplemental appropriation for the work of the Bureau of Mines under the recently enacted mine safety law. Housing and Community Development Expenditures for housing and community development programs — including civil de- fense— are estimated at $657 million in the fiscal year 1953. This is $21 million less than was estimated in January. Because of a substantial reduction in ap- propriations, expenditures for civil defense are now estimated at $80 million, less than one-fourth the January estimate of $339 million. Expenditures for defense housing and community facilities are now estimated at $85 million, less than one-third of the Janu- ary estimate of $274 million. The reduction is due largely to the fact that the amounts authorized for these programs were sub- stantially less than anticipated in January. On the other hand, net expenditures for purchases of mortgages and for direct housing loans to veterans are expected to be $450 million higher than anticipated in January. The January estimates for these two programs assumed that by 1953 the sup- ply of private mortgage funds would be sufficient both to permit increased sales of mortgages by the Federal Government and to reduce the need for future Federal sup- port of both defense and nondefense housing. These assumptions have not yet been realized. Education and General Research For education and general research in the fiscal year 1953, expenditures are now esti- mated at $263 million — less than half the $624 million estimated in January. The earlier figure included $355 million for the following recommended legislation which was not enacted: (1) general aid for the operation of elementary and secondary schools, (2) the extension and expansion of the program of assistance for the education of children on Federal property and in emer- gency and critical defense housing areas, and 527 [231] Aug. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents (3) loans and scholarships to college students. Expenditures in 1953 are expected to be $84 million higher than the actual expendi- tures in 1952, chiefly because of a large in- crease in school enrollments in areas affected by current mobilization activities, which will require higher Federal payments to the States under existing legislation. Social Security, Welfare, and Health Expenditures for social security, welfare, and health are now estimated at $2.7 bil- lion— $5 million more than was estimated in January. As a result of new legislation, it is esti- mated that expenditures for public assistance will be $1.3 billion, $75 million higher than was anticipated last January. The revised figure takes into account an anticipated sup- plemental appropriation of $315 million, of which $170 million will be needed under the current program and $145 million for new legislation which will raise Federal contributions to the States beginning October 1, 1952. Expenditures for railroad retirement, rep- resenting for the most part transfers to the trust fund of tax receipts from the railroads and their employees, are now estimated at $690 million, $33 million less than was an- ticipated in January. The revised estimate of expenditures for public health programs is $327 million, $14 million lower than the January figure. For other social security, welfare, and health pro- grams, expenditures are expected to be $333 million, $23 million less than was estimated in January. Veterans* Services and Benefits For veterans' programs in the fiscal year 1953, expenditures are now estimated at $4.5 billion. The increase of $282 million over the January figure is the result of new legis- lation enacted since January. The total cost of this new legislation in 1953 is estimated at more than $500 million, but the January estimates anticipated some of this cost. 528 Expenditures for readjustment benefits are now estimated at $992 million, $179 million more than was estimated in January. The increase results from enactment of the Vet- erans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, providing education and training, loan guar- antees, unemployment compensation, and other benefits for veterans with service since June 27, 1950. It is expected that a supple- mental appropriation of $284 million will be needed under this law during 1953, its first year of operation, as compared to the January estimate of $75 million. Expenditures for compensation and pen- sion payments in the fiscal year 1953 are now estimated at $2.4 billion, $118 million more than was estimated in January. The increase is chiefly the result of new laws which raised both compensation and pension rates and liberalized eligibility conditions for nonservice-connected pensions. For 1953, supplemental appropriations of $218 million will be needed under the new laws, as com- pared to fioo million anticipated in the budget. General Government Expenditures for general government pro- grams in the fiscal year 1953 are estimated at $ 1 .3 billion. This is $23 1 million lower than was estimated in January. The principal reason for the reduction is that the Congress appropriated $136 million less than the amount recommended to cover the Government's current employer-obliga- tion to the Civil Service retirement and dis- ability trust fund and to start amortizing the Government's accrued liability to the fund. Funds requested for expanding the staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue were not approved, and substantial reductions were made in the appropriations for maintaining and operating Government buildings, for supplies and equipment, and for record- keeping activities. Interest Interest payments in the fiscal year 1953 are now expected to be $6.4 billion, $176 mil- Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 20 [232] lion higher than was estimated in January. Although the budget deficit for 1953 is expected to be lower than anticipated in January, the interest-bearing debt during the early part of the year will be higher, because of (1) differences in the timing of Treasury borrowing, and (2) greater concentration of interest payments on certain of the most re- cent issues in 1953, with less carryover into the following year than had been antici- pated. Interest rates on certain types of debt, such as savings bonds, also are somewhat higher. note: Released with the statement were tables showing: (i) resume of budget receipts, expendi- tures, and public debt, (2) budget expenditures by function, (3) new obligational authority by func- tion, and (4) receipts from and payments to the public. As printed above, references to the tables have been omitted. 232 Letter to Capt. Charles G. Ewing on the Repatriation of Prisoners of War in Korea. August 20, 1952 [ Released August 20, 1952. Dated August 13, 1952 ] Dear Captain Ewing: I read with great interest your observations on your interviews with prisoners of war in Korea. Your conversations with those men who prefer death to life under a communist regime point up vividly the compelling humanitarian and moral reasons for the stand which the United Nations negotiators have taken on the repatriation question. We must not use bayonets to force these prisoners to return to slavery and almost cer- tain death at the hands of the communists. You soldiers in Korea can also well appreciate the fact that behind the Iron Cur- tain there are millions of people who yearn desperately to regain their lost freedom and sense of dignity. These people look to the free world as their only hope to achieve this goal. This fact applies with special force to those hundreds of thousands of Chinese and North Koreans who have been impressed into the communist armies and forced to face suffering and death to further the brutal ends of aggression. Thank you for writing. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Captain Charles G. Ewing, 704th CIC Detach- ment, APO 59, c/o Postmaster, San Francisco, California] note: The President's letter was in response to a letter dated July 20, in which Captain Ewing stated that since the repatriation issue had become a stumbling block to the Panmunjom Conference, and many people were becoming weary of the matter, he thought that the President would like to hear from someone who had talked with large numbers of the prisoners who were resisting repatriation. Captain Ewing told the President that his job was to determine whether or not the prisoners were enemy agents. He added: "They have been brought to me still bleeding from scratches from the barbed wires, some wounded by stones flung by strong Communists trying to hold them back, some wounded by birdshot from U.N. guards, but smiling and happy because they have fought their way through to a chance for permanent escape from a miserable life under the reds." He said that his contacts with the prisoners had convinced him that they could not and should not be forced to return to their enslaved homeland. Captain Ewing concluded by stating, "I believe that most of these men who have risked death to protest being sent back to their homes are telling the truth when they say they would rather die than live under communism again." The public release of the exchange of corre- spondence was delayed until the President's letter could be delivered to Captain Ewing. 529 [233] Aug. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents 233 The President's News Conference of August 2i, 1952 the president. Please be seated. This time it isn't the Navy clock that's slow, it's that one up there. [Laughter] I am ready for questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you have made any personal inquiry, sir, into the incidents in Sweden involving Miss Margaret? 1 the president. No, I haven't. Q. I assume you have read over the re- ports you have? the president. I have read the reports as they came to me. [2.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to answer this Saturday Evening Post article of last week by Glenn Everett, the one that said in the 1948 campaign that you gave farmers false information about grain storage shortages ? the president. I haven't read the article and don't intend to read it, and of course I won't say anything about it. I don't very often read the Post because it's always wrong on most things. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the calling of the Russian congress ? Do you have any observations or reactions the president. No, that's none of my business. It's up to the Russians. You want to ask a question ? [4.] Q. Do you have any comment on the exchange of letters between Governor Stevenson 2 and Pordand, Oregon, in which the Governor promised to do his best to clean up what he called the "mess" in Wash- ington? 1 There had been reports in the Swedish press that the Secret Service agents accompanying Margaret Truman on her European tour had used unnecessary force while protecting the President's daughter. 2 Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Demo- cratic candidate for President, had written a letter to Tom Humphrey, editor of the Oregon Journal's editorial page, who had asked the question: "Can Stevenson really clean up the mess in Washington?" the president. I have no comment, be- cause I know nothing about any "mess." Q. Mr. President, yesterday Governor Stevenson told a news conference that crime and corruption in Washington had been, quote, proven, unquote, by the fact that some people had been indicted. Do you have any comment? the president. I didn't see the article, and therefore I can't comment on it. [5.] Q. Mr. President, I also would like to ask you— Senator John Sparkman3 said that the steel strike had been mishandled. I wonder if you have any reaction to that? the president. No comment. [6.] Q. Mr. President, you said you had read the reports of the Swedish incident. Do you have any comment on them, sir? THE PRESIDENT. None. [7.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to clear up one thing. In view of what Gov- ernor Stevenson said and what Senator Sparkman said, do you have any feeling of being a target? the president. Can't possibly be. I am the key of the campaign. I can't be a target. Q. I didn't follow that, Mr. President? the president. I said I have no comment on what Tony 4 asked me, but I am the key of the campaign and so of course I can't be a target on the Democratic side. I will be a target for Eisenhower and his cohorts, but not for the Democrats. Q. Mr. President, would you explain a litde more what you mean by "key of the campaign" ? the president. Well, the Democratic Party has to run on the record of the Roose- velt-Truman administrations, and that's all it can run on. You know that. You have been in politics a long time. I used to see you down in the Senate all the time, watch- ing me. [Laughter] 3 Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President. 4 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 530 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 21 [233] Q. Now I'm up here watching you. the president. That's all right. I am glad to have you. I don't think you will find out anything new. Q. In that connection, Mr. President, Gov- ernor Stevenson has said something to the effect that he wants to bring about a re- freshening of the — I suppose of what has been going on for 12 years, or 20 years for that matter the president. Well, new blood is always helpful in any organization, and I believe in that. I believe there ought to be new blood infused into the Democratic Party, but that doesn't mean that we are going back on what the Democratic Party has done in the last 20 years at all. [8.] Q. Well, Mr. President, to go back to the Saturday Evening Post the president. Why do you want to go back to that sheet, May? 5 [Laughter] Q. Well, sir, I was rather surprised. You said you never read it, but it was always wrong. Now, how do you know that? Do you get a briefing? Do you get summaries of things that the president. All I need do is look at the table of contents, May, and I know what's in it. And it's always wrong. [Laughter] [9.] Q. Mr. President, on this question of the bodyguard for Miss Margaret, are there some new instructions — different in- structions being sent to them? the president. Not necessary at all. They need no instruction. They are right, always. [10.] Q. Mr. President, do you know what you are going to do in the campaign today? the president. I will make the announce- ments at the proper time, and you will all have a chance — those of you who want to — will have a chance to pack your grips and go along, if you choose. [11.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could go one step further — I don't want to belabor the thing the president. Go ahead, Tony. Q. Are you satisfied with the way that Stevenson and Sparkman have initiated their campaign? the president. No comment. [12.] Q. I don't want to do a solo here the president. Go ahead, Tony. Try your luck. [Laughter] Q. Well, last week you said that General Eisenhower had sometimes garbled some of the things you said. I wonder if you would tell us just what the president. Did I say that, Tony? I don't remember saying anything like that. Q. We asked you about the liberty he would have to disclose what you told him, and you said that he had always spoken pretty freely — some words to that effect — and you said sometimes he had garbled what you said. the president. Maybe I said he got mixed up. I don't think he intended to garble it at all. All of us do that, including reporters. [13.] Q. I have one more, sir, while I'm on my feet. the president. Shoot, Tony — shoot. Q. A Los Angeles paper has asked me about the visit of Mayor Fletcher Bowron,6 Monday — he wouldn't talk after he left there. the president. My suggestion to the Los Angeles Times — I guess that's the one that asked you — is to talk to the mayor. Q. They have done that, sir. the president. Well, that's all right then — they have got all the information they are entitled to. They won't get any from me. Q. Could you say whether he is being considered for a judgeship out there? the president. The matter was not dis- cussed at all. [14.] Q. Mr. President, Secretary Lovett raised an interesting question the other day, on the carryover from one administration to the other on breaking in new men. Have 5 Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. B Mayor of Los Angeles, Calif. 531 [233] Aug. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents you got any ideas on how that could be done on your budget the president. Well, I think the record is perfecdy plain on that — both candidates have been invited to be briefed on the policy and the future situation with regard to the Gov- ernment, and of course I think Secretary Lovett's idea was just a followup on that program. Of course, I don't know who the new Cabinet is going to be, and neither does any- body else. [15.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you would comment on what General Eisen- hower had to say yesterday in Boise? I was going to quote from the president. Go ahead, Eddie,7 because I haven't read it. [Laughter] Q. He said— well, he said that the Gov- ernment applies the philosophy of the left, and goes on to say that the Government will build the power dams, the Government will tell you how to distribute your power, the Government will do this and that, the Gov- ernment does everything but come in and wash the dishes for the housewife the president. Well now, Eddie, I think a little later on that will be gone into very carefully, but it will be on the stump and not here at a press conference. Q. Well, Mr. President, could I ask a kind of general question? the president. Sure — let's see what you mean by general question — but go ahead. Q. Yes, sir. There again you haven't read what General Eisenhower said, but you will answer him later in the campaign. How do you keep up with the general prog- ress of these subjects which you will either answer or deal with, or you should know about? Do you get briefings, or summa- ries, or the president. Well, May, I think I know more about the Government than any man in the United States, and when I get ready to tell what the Government means and what it does, it will be a categorical answer to anything that the opposition may 7 Edward T. Folliard of the Washington Post. have to say. I don't have to read what they have to say. I know what they are going to say. And it's all wrong. And I am going to prove that I am right. [Laughter] Q. Does somebody thrash out for you all the information you should have? the president. It isn't necessary at all, May, because I am familiar with the whole situation from start to finish. Q. But you don't know what is being said if you don't read it yourself. the president. Yes, I do; I know exactly what they are going to say. It has been said time and time again. Read Willkie. Read Dewey. You just get a repeat, that's all. [16.] Q. Mr. President, anything new on a special session plan? the president. What's that? Q. Anything new on a special session? the president. Not a thing. [17.] Q. Mr. President, there has been some concern expressed on the part of some Democratic Party leaders, for fear that Mr. Stevenson might not have the facilities of the same good researchers that you had in your 1948 campaign. Some of these people, I believe, are still on your staff, or closely associated with you. Their names have not been mentioned. There have only been two, I believe, sent to Stevenson's staff — maybe one. I wonder if you would tell us if you are going to give Mr. Stevenson the same advantage of these good researchers as you had in 1948? the president. Why, certainly. He can have all the information he wants, and so can Eisenhower, if he wants it. I will give them the truth. Then if they want to use it, why it's up to them. Q. I don't want to cut anybody off — do you have anything else to say, sir? the president. Not a thing. Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. note: President Truman's three hundred and thirteenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, August 21, 1952. 532 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Aug. 22 [236] 234 Remarks to a Group of Exchange Teachers From Great Britain, France, and Canada. August 21, 1952 Than\ you very much, Mr. Eu/ing. Mr. Ambassador, and visiting teachers: It is a pleasure to me to welcome you here, and I hope that you will enjoy your stay in this country. As I have said before to similar meetings, I think this is the way for us to find out exactly what our people are, and how they think, and how they act; and when you find that out you will find that there isn't a great deal of difference between us, you will find that when the associations such as this take place, that there isn't much difference between us at home and abroad. That is a contribution to peace in the world, to the welfare of all the people in the world. And I am hopeful that when you go back to your home countries, and when our people come back from your countries, that there will be a better understanding, and that we will have made a great contribution to the peace of the world — an honest peace, not a propaganda peace. A peace that is real — a peace that will give us security in the future. I thank you very much for coming here, and I hope you will enjoy it. note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening remarks he referred to Oscar R. Ewing, Federal Security Administrator. The teachers were in the United States, under the provisions of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 6). 235 Statement by the President: The Jewish New Year. August 22, 1952 TO ALL Americans of the Jewish faith, I extend congratulations on the occasion of the Jewish New Year and cordial good wishes for the year ahead. In extending greetings at this time, I am mindful that you have contributed greatly to our general welfare in many ways. I know that all of you are determined to do all that you can to see that our country con- tinues free, strong, and prosperous. I am convinced that so long as we maintain our common unity of purpose, our future is secure. 236 Remarks to a Group of Students From Kansas High Schools. August 22, 1952 THANK YOU very much. It is a pleasure to have you here again, Commander, with your young people from the great and neigh- boring State of Kansas. I hope you have had a pleasant visit here in the Capital City. It is a wonderful place to visit. It's an awful place to live, particularly when you have to live here. The building at which you are looking over there has just been completely rehabili- tated. The whole inside was taken out of it. It was reconstructed, and new foundations were put under it. But if you had seen the floors which are open to the public before- hand, and seen them now, you would have great difficulty in finding any particular dif- ference, except that it is new and clean, much more so than it was to begin with. You see, the old timbers were put back in the house after it was burned by the British in 1 8 14, and then it had been overhauled — oh, I'd say four or five times between those 55-672—66 -37 533 [236] Aug. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents dates and almost completely overhauled in 1902, still using the old cracked and burned timbers. In putting in gas and electric lights, and fixtures and things in the house, the supporting timbers had been sawn through in places — taken wedges out of them. Of course, that weakened them. My daughter's piano went through her sitting room up there, one of the legs of it stuck down into the family dining room down below. We had to build supports to keep the whole thing from falling down. It won't fall down now. I think it would be almost impossible even to blow it up. I hope that will never happen, and I hope we will live all the rest of our lives in a peaceful world. And when it comes your turn to take over in running the Government of the United States, I hope you will continue this great Republic in the traditions on which it was founded. You do live in the greatest country in the wrorld. It is a responsibility which we will have to assume. Great strength and great productive ability requires responsibility on our part to help keep the peace of the world. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are in the midst of our 4-yearly spasm of electing a President now, and you will hear a lot of hooey during that campaign. But I think you — in your studies of his- tory— will know what to believe and what not to believe, and when the smoke and dust is all blown away, the Republic will continue along as usual, and just as it always has. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 3:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening remarks he referred to Frank F. Eckdall, Com- mander of the Kansas Department of Veterans of Foreign Wars. The students had just completed a goodwill tour of Canada which they had won in a contest for the best essays on U.S. -Canadian relations. The con- test and trip were sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of Kansas. 237 Statement by the President: Labor Day. August 28, 1952 TODAY, is Labor Day — a day dedicated to the working men and women of America. It has been 70 years since Peter J. Mc- Guire first proposed to the New York Trades and Labor Assembly that there should be an annual holiday, a Labor Day, to honor "the industrial spirit, the great, vital force of every nation." This Nation has come far in those 70 years. And our working men and women have gained immeasurably in security and dignity and freedom, as citizens of the Re- public and as partners in the Nation's eco- nomic progress. Nearly 16 million American workers are now organized in unions of their own choosing, to help themselves, their communi- ties, and their country. Their record is a tribute to the American system of free collec- tive bargaining, which responsible trade unionism has developed to replace the old law of the jungle in our industrial relations. We should never forget, in our concern with occasional dramatic work stoppages, the tens of thousands of peaceful setdements, nego- tiated each year, by free unions with free management. In this and many other ways, the trade unions of America have made a great and growing contribution to our national life. They are playing a vital, constructive, and responsible part in the growth of the Ameri- can economy and in our great national effort to win peace and security for ourselves and all free peoples. The Government has helped with laws safeguarding labor's right to organize and bargain collectively; and with other laws banning sweatshop wages and child labor, and preventing exploitation of the weak. The Government has helped with many measures to enhance the health and welfare 534 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 28 [238] and security of workers and all other citizens. Today, we celebrate these advances for the working people of America. But it is not enough to celebrate the progress we have made. This is a day to look ahead, to plan where we are going, to consider the things we can accomplish in the future. Many of our citizens — many of our work- ing men and women — need more adequate protection against the great financial hazards of sickness, disability, unemployment, and old age. We need more and better housing for our growing population. We must build up our schools in many areas. We must end the discrimination which has cast shadows on some parts of our great record of freedom. We must improve our system of collective bargaining to promote industrial peace and productivity. We must safeguard our national prosper- ity to keep our economy growing. We must safeguard our heritage of freedom against the attacks of totalitarian ideologies, both left and right. We must safeguard our na- tional security by building strong defenses at home and by working with other nations to keep peace in the world. Let all of us — workers, farmers, business- men, all citizens — dedicate ourselves this Labor Day to these goals of peaceful progress for ourselves and for our country in the years ahead. note: The statement was released on August 28. Labor Day was observed on September 1, 1952. 238 The President's News Conference of August 28, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no announcements to make. [1.] Q. Mr. President, the American Legion has asked you to oust Secretary of State Acheson. I wonder what comment you can make on that? the president. Well, if the young boys who got up that resolution and passed it by a silent vote had the responsibility of furnish- ing the United States with a Secretary of State, they undoubtedly would — with the responsibility — appoint the best man for the job in the United States, and that is Dean Acheson. Q. Then your answer, I would assume, is no? [Laughter] the president. Well, I can't — the answer that I would make to them is not printable, so I have nothing more to say. Mr. Short x [To the President] : Your an- swer is the one you made. the president. I made the answer. That doesn't need any elaboration. [2.] Q. Mr. President, I have a couple of questions. 1 Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President. the president. Fire. Q. About a month ago, Senator Williams of Delaware sent you a letter pointing out that he asked to look at some tax cases in the Bureau of Internal Revenue. You refused, saying that he would have to have your per- mission, and he asked for your permission in that letter. Are you going to do anything about that the president. Which he did not get, and which he won't. Q. You are not going to give him the president. Of course not. ; [3.] Q. One more, Mr. President. At a press conference the other day, Adlai Steven- son said that, quote, the mess, unquote, in Washington had been proven. Do you agree with him ? the president. No comment. You didn't get what you wanted, did you? [Laughter] [4.] Q. Mr. President, I have two ques- tions the president. Fire away. Q. the first one is, did Congressman Beck worth today ask you for a job? the president. Congressman Beckworth 535 [238] Aug. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents was in to talk to me about some things that affected the campaign in Texas. [5.] Q. I see, sir. The other question concerns the campaign in Texas, in a way. Senator Lyndon Johnson issued a statement today, in which he said he would support the nominees of the party, and he added for Texans that he thought that they stood to lose more by deserting their Democratic col- leagues than they would gain by going with the Republicans. What do you say to that? the president. I am glad there are still a lot of good Democrats in Texas. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, do you think it is possible to roll back the Iron Curtain to the borders of the Soviet Union without using force? the president. I will answer that ques- tion at a later date. I can't answer it today. [7.] Q. Mr. President, did you approve the trip to Iran for Mr. Jones, the oil man? the president. He did not need any ap- proval at all. He came to talk to me about going there, and an American has a right to go anywhere he pleases, if he can get a visa for it. Q. Did you ask him to make a report to you the president. I asked him to do nothing. Q. Mr. President, I lost the individual's identity the president. Mr. Jones of the Cities Service Company. He is chairman of the board — and a very fine man, by the way. Q. Do you happen to know his first name ? Q. W. Alton. the president. No, I don't. [Laughter] Q. Alton. the president. I don't happen to know his first name. [8.] Q. Mr. President, do you believe Governor Stevenson's stand on the tidelands issue has in any way endangered a Demo- cratic victory in Louisiana or Texas? the president. No, I don't. Didn't do me any harm before. I carried Texas by more than two to one. You people don't understand this situa- tion in Texas or Louisiana, or anywhere else in the South. A great many people down there don't own oil wells, are not multimil- lionaires, and they will vote the Democratic ticket. Q. Sir, wasn't the Supreme Court deci- sion— didn't that come down after the 1948 election ? the president. I don't know, but I made my stand perfectly clear on the tidelands long before that — long before that. [9.] Q. Mr. President, do you still have hope for a peaceful settlement in Korea? the president. I do. [10.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask — if I can use a rather rough phrase — do you plan to give anybody hell on your trip to Milwaukee and back? 2 the president. You will just have to find that out as we go along. I never have done that, views to the contrary notwithstanding. [Laughter] [11.] Q. Mr. President, is there any kind of a secret plan — any kind of plan — for end- ing the Korean war? the president. There is not. All the cards are on the table, and published in the news- papers every day in toto. [12.] Q. Mr. President, a Senate com- mittee today reported that our buildup of aircraft — military aircraft — has been slow, and has been bungled. Do you have any comment or the president. I haven't read the report, and I can't comment on it. [13.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to make some whisdestop talks on the way to and from Milwaukee ? the president. You will be notified of that in time. Everything will be in order. [14.] Q. Well, one other question. Have you heard that Colonel McCormick 3 bolted the Republican Party? Do you 2 See Items 240-242. 3 Col. Robert R. McCormick, editor and pub- lisher of the Chicago Tribune. 536 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Aug. 29 [239] think the president. Yes, indeed. I want to give that all the encouragement possible. [Laughter] He is trying to pull an 1852 on us, when the Whig Party went out of business. Q. How are you going to encourage that? - the president. I think it's a good thing for the Republican Party to have a few things stirred up in it. It helps the Demo- crats. That's what I am interested in. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, do you think the Re- publican Party will meet the same fate as the Whigs after 1952? the president. I can't make any proph- ecies. I never pretended to be a prophet, or a pollster, either. But I can guess pretty well. Q. They ran a general a couple of times the president. What's that ? Q. I just observed they ran a general a couple of times, and it didn't work out so well. the president. I don't make any proph- ecies on political affairs. I have been at it too long. I have been in elective public office for practically 30 years, and have had nearly every office from the county to the State and the Nation. And never have had one that I really wanted, and never had one that I let them take away from me, so I think that's a pretty good record. Q. We didn't hear the first question over here, sir. the president. It was just a comment, there wasn't any question. [Laughter] [15.] Q. Mr. President, getting back to the Korean question, can you give some indication the president. There will be no more comment on Korea. You needn't ask me any more questions on it. Q. You wouldn't say on what basis the president. I make no comment — no comment. I have said what I think, and that's enough. [Pause] Are you running out of soap? [16.] Q. Mr. President, could I ask — in the past you have publicly held out hope for the people behind the Iron Curtain that it would be rolled back the president. No comment. Q. Is there anything we have overlooked, Mr. President? the president. I don't believe there is. If I could think of anything, why I would give it to you. Reporter. Thank you, sir. note: President Truman's three hundred and fourteenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, August 28, 1952. 239 Special Message to the Congress on the Trade Agreement With Venezuela. August 29, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: On August 28, 1952, the United States signed an agreement with Venezuela which amends and supplements the Trade Agree- ment of 1939 between the two countries. In view of a special situation which arose in connection with this agreement, I am sub- mitting the following statement to the Congress: Subsection (a) of Section 3 of the Trade Agreements Extension Act of 1951 provides that before entering into negotiations for a trade agreement the President shall submit to the Tariff Commission a list of the articles to be considered for specific concessions and that upon receipt of such list ". . . the Com- mission shall make an investigation and re- port to the President the findings of the Commission with respect to each such article as to (1) the limit to which such modifica- tion, imposition, or continuance may be ex- tended in order to carry out the purpose of 537 [239] Aug. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents such section 350 without causing or threaten- ing serious injury to the domestic industry producing like or direcdy competitive arti- cles; and (2) if increases in duties or addi- tional import restrictions are required to . avoid serious injury to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive articles the minimum increases in duties or addi- tional import restrictions required. Such re- port shall be made by the Commission to the President not later than 120 days after the receipt of such list by the Commission. No , such foreign trade agreement shall be en- tered into until the Commission has made its report to the President or until the ex- piration of the 120-day period." The find- ings of the Tariff Commission under this subsection are popularly known as the "peril point" findings. Under subsection (a) of Section 4, in case the President enters into a trade agreement which exceeds the so-called "peril point" findings of the Tariff Commission he shall within the 30 days "transmit to Congress a copy of such agreement together with a mes- sage accurately identifying the article with respect to which such limits or minimum requirements are not complied with, and stating his reasons for the action taken with respect to such article. If either the Senate or the House of Representatives, or both, are not in session at the time of such transmis- sion, such agreement and message shall be filed with the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, or both, as the case may be." Subsection (b) of Section 4 requires the Tariff Commission promptly after the Presi- dent has transmitted such foreign trade agreement to Congress to "deposit with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the Commit- tee on Finance of the Senate, a copy of the portions of its report to the President deal- ing with the articles with respect to which such limits or minimum requirements are , not complied with." In preparation for the negotiations with the Government of Venezuela looking to- wards an agreement supplementary to the existing reciprocal trade agreement with that country of November 6, 1939, I sub- mitted to the Tariff Commission a list of articles to be considered for specific conces- sions by the United States. In accordance with Section 3 of the Trade Agreements Ex- tension Act of 195 1, hereinabove set forth, the Tariff Commission reported to me on December 27, 1951, its findings with respect to each such article as to the limit below which concessions could not be granted without causing or threatening serious in- jury to the domestic industry producing like or directly competitive products. For a cer- tain group of petroleum products 1 three of the Commissioners found that the peril point was the existing tariff quota arrange- ment (io1/^ per barrel or %4 per gallon on a quantity equal to 5 percent of the total quantity of crude petroleum processed in refineries in continental United States dur- ing the preceding calendar year and 21 cents per barrel, or l/2 cents per gallon, in excess of this quantity). The other three Com- missioners found that a rate oiiol/2 cents per barrel on all imports would constitute the peril point. Although there are a number of legal issues involved on the question of whether there is or is not any peril point found within the requirements of section 3 of the statute by reason of the evenly-divided Commission, I nevertheless desire to inform the Congress of the action I have taken with respect to those petroleum products in the agreement. The text of the supplementary trade agree- ment which I have concluded with the Gov- ernment of Venezuela is attached. This agreement contains the following concession on Paragraph 1733 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Section 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code: 1 Crude petroleum, topped crude petroleum, and fuel oil derived from petroleum (including fuel oil known as gas oil) — Paragraph 1733 Tariff Act of 1930 and Section 3422, Internal Revenue Code. 538 Harry S. Truman, J952 Aug. 29 [239] Tariff Act of mo Paragraph Description of Article Kate of Duty 1733 Petroleum, crude, fuel, or refined and all distillates obtained from petroleum, including kerosene, benzine, naphtha, gasoline, paraffin, and paraffin oil, not specially provided for (except petroleum jelly or petrolatum, and except mineral oil of medicinal grade) Free. Internal Revenue Code Kate of Section Description of Article Import Tax 3412. Crude petroleum, topped crude petroleum, and fuel oil derived from petro- leum (including fuel oil known as gas oil) : Testing under 25 degrees A.P.I }i$ per gal. Testing 2.5 degrees A.P.I, or more }{£ per gal. Thus, when the agreement enters into force, a rate of 5%^ per barrel will apply to im- ports into the United States of crude petro- leum, topped crude petroleum and fuel oil derived from petroleum (including fuel oil known as gas oil) which is testing under 25 degrees A.P.I. (American Petroleum In- stitute Rating) ; the rate on those same prod- ucts testing 25 degrees A.P.I, or more will be io1/^ per barrel. The supplementary agreement with Vene- zuela will provide for increased trade be- tween the two countries. It will contribute to the security of both countries and will stimulate the development of proven oil re- serves in the Western hemisphere. As compared to the 1939 agreement, Vene- zuela grants new or improved concessions on $154 million of imports from the United States in 1950; on $12 million of imports they are withdrawing the 1939 concessions; and on $6 million of imports the new agree- ment provides for higher Venezuelan rates than in the 1939 agreement. The trade coverage of the 1939 agreement as supple- mented by the new agreement is $240 million or about 60 percent of total United States exports to Venezuela. Under the 1939 agreement, only 35 percent of our exports were covered. Among the important items receiving new or improved duty concessions are apples, pears, certain dried vegetables, rolled oats, wheat flour, barley malt, baby and dietetic foods, wrapping paper, laboratory and refractory glass products, galvanized iron sheets, enameled iron and steel manu- unassembled trucks and passenger cars, factures, builders' hardware, table flatware, motorcycles, aircraft and parts, trailers, radio and television receivers including parts, phonographs including combinations and parts, phonograph records, automatic re- frigerators, scientific apparatus, hand tools, photographic products, office machinery, electric motors, pumps, numerous types of industrial machinery and apparatus and parts, generators and transformers. Among the products on which new bindings of duty- free treatment were granted by Venezuela are road building, textile and printing ma- chinery; stoves, heaters and ovens, and parts for agricultural machinery. The agreement, as revised, covers 179 Venezuelan tariff items as compared with 88 in the 1939 agreement. It includes products of interest to practically every important group of United States ex- porters. Concessions by Venezuela have particular significance since that country has no balance of payment difficulties in purchas- ing from the dollar area. In 1950 United States imports from Venezuela of crude petroleum and residual fuel oir amounted to $288 million or about 90 percent of our total imports from Vene- zuela. It is estimated that the 1950 value of trade on which the United States granted improved customs treatment is about $175 million, of which practically all was crude petroleum and residual fuel oil. New con- cessions of potential value to Venezuela con- 539 [239] Aug. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents sisted of the binding of existing duty-free entry for iron ore, deposits of which are now being developed. The new agreement also amends and sup- plements some of the general provisions of the 1939 agreement. The principal changes are a substantial strengthening of the quota provision so as to safeguard more adequately the value of the reciprocal tariff concessions, an additional reciprocal undertaking with regard to customs formalities, and the in- clusion of the standard escape clause in event serious injury should be caused or threatened to domestic industry as a result of the agreement. With regard to the concession on crude petroleum, topped crude and fuel oil derived from petroleum, it would have been possible under the authority of the Trade Agree- ments Act to reduce the excise tax provided for in Section 3422 of the Internal Revenue Code to 5%^ per barrel. The majority of the representatives of private business urged during the hearings held both by the Tariff Commission and by the Committee for Reciprocity Information that such a conces- sion be made to Venezuela. I have agreed to a concession of 5 J4 # per barrel on imports of some of these kinds of petroleum products, namely, those which test under 25 degrees A.P.I. A rate of io1^^ per barrel, a treat- ment which was in effect from 1943 through 1950 under the Mexican Trade Agreement, is provided for under the new agreement for petroleum products testing 25 degrees or more A.P.I. , which constitute the greater part of United States imports of crude oil. Ex- perience during 1943-50 indicates that im- ports at io1/^ will undoubtedly prove no deterrent to drilling and development pro- grams now under way in the United States. Most of the crude oil produced in the United States has a specific gravity of 25 degrees A.P.I. or higher. The national average is about 35 degrees A.P.I. For ex- ample, less than one percent of the crude oil produced in West Texas is below 25 degrees A.P.I. Most of the heavier crude oils in the United States are produced in the Rocky Mountain area, in California and in some of the Gulf Coast area. About one-third of the Venezuelan crude oil production has a gravity of less than 25 degrees A.P.I. Nearly all of the low-gravity oil is shipped to the refineries on the islands of Aruba and Curacao. Only the asphalt crudes, some of the topped crude, and the residual fuel oil will pay the lower excise tax. Generally, imports of these heavier crude oils sell in markets different from those in which domestic low- gravity oils sell. Furthermore, the lower gravity oils have a lower value in the market than the higher gravity petroleum products. It is believed appropriate, therefore, that these commodities of less worth should be dutiable at a lower specific rate and that the more valuable oils should pay a higher rate. The imported oils which would pay the lower tax are among those which are in rela- tively short supply in the United States and generally throughout the world. It is not expected that the lower tax applicable to such oils will cause an undue increase in im- ports above the quantity which otherwise might be imported. It would appear, ac- cordingly, that the lower tax on residual fuel oil would not serve to disturb the relation- ship which now exists in the United States between this fuel and other sources of heat and energy. One major use of residual fuel oil is for ship bunkering; oil for this purpose tradi- tionally has been imported free into the United States. The residual fuel oil sub- ject to import tax is utilized mainly in gas and electric power plants, in smelters, mines, and manufacturing industries, and, to a lesser degree, as heating oil in industrial plants. Most of these users are located along the East Coast. For the most part, these fuel-burning in- stallations, particularly the power plants, are convertible, using either coal or residual fuel oil depending upon which is cheaper at a given time. In recent years coal has been cheaper. Coal is also more available, be- cause residual fuel oil is in tight world sup- 540 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 1 [240] ply, and because the percentage of residual fuel oil to total output of United States re- fineries is constantly decreasing as emphasis shifts to distilling larger amounts of the higher and more valuable fractions, such as gasoline. Therefore, the percentage of con- vertible plants using coal has increased steadily since 1949, until now most of the east Coast power plants are using coal rather than residual fuel oil. The reduction in ex- cise tax on residual fuel oil in the present agreement is not expected to be sufficient to change this long-term trend. In reviewing this situation in its peril point findings, the various Tariff Commission members, too, concluded that it offered no valid deterrent to a reduction in the import tax on petroleum. The conclusion of the supplementary trade agreement is recognition by both the United States and Venezuela of a common interest in the expansion of trade. Vene- zuela is one of the largest markets for a wide range of United States export products. The United States provides an important and established market for Venezuelan oil, this representing, in turn, an essential supple- ment to domestic United States production. The United States will also provide a mar- ket for other Venezuelan natural resources, such as iron ore, which are needed in this country. The agreement, therefore, will be of economic benefit to both countries. It is, moreover, of vital security importance in view of the strategic nature of some of the products included within its terms. Harry S. Truman note: The treaty was ratified on September u, 1952, and entered into force on October n, 1952. It was proclaimed by the President on September 10, 1952, and on September 19, 1952, the Presi- dent proclaimed the date the agreement would enter into force. The text of the treaty is printed in the United States Treaties and Other International Agreements (3 UST 4195) and in House Document 43 (83d Cong., 1st sess.). 240 Rear Platform Remarks in Pennsylvania and Ohio. September i, 1952 [1.] Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Rear plat- form, 8:10 a.m.) Mr. Kane, Mr. Mayor, and these distin- guished candidates who certainly will ma\e Pennsylvania Democratic this time: It is certainly a pleasure to be here this early in the morning. I didn't expect to see so many people up before breakfast, al- though I have had mine. This looks to me as if it is going to be a fine day — a great day for Democrats. I get a great deal of pleasure in meetings such as this. A meeting like this one is much better for the welfare of the Democratic Party and the people of the United States than one that is organized for the purpose of getting out a crowd. Now, when people get up this early in the morning, as many of them as are here, it goes to show that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. Along about this time, before a campaign, the Republicans begin to tell the country just how bad off it is, and how much it needs to be changed around some way, so that they can get in power. Their objective is not to talk of the principles for which they should stand, if they are going to run the country. They can't find anything on which to stand. They stand first one way and then the other. They face first the east and then they face west, and then they don't know what they are facing; then they commence to abuse the Democrats. Their only issue is to throw mud at the people who are running on the Democratic ticket, and I want to say to you that we have got a candidate for President on this Democratic ticket that will and can win — Adlai Stevenson. I have just been talking to this wonderful 55-672—66 541 [240] Sept. Public Papers of the Presidents bunch of candidates that were introduced to you awhile ago, and I can't see how in the world Pennsylvania can do anything else but go Democratic this time. It almost did be- fore— and should have — and wished it had ever since. I hope every one of you will put forth every effort of which you are capable to see that every friend that you have, and every Democrat that you know, is registered and qualified to vote when the November elec- tion comes around. There's no use coming out to meetings like this, and cheering and talking, unless you are willing to do your duty on election day. And if you do that duty as you should, we will have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress that will carry through the principles for which the Democratic Party stands. Thank you a lot. [2.] Crestline, Ohio (Rear platform, 12:15 p.m.) Thank you — thank you very much. It is a pleasure indeed to have the privilege of being presented to this wonderful Ohio audience this morning by my good friend Mike here. From the looks of this Demo- cratic ticket you have presented this morn- ing, the Democrats certainly ought to take Ohio by storm this time. You may remember that I stopped here a couple of times in 1948. I appreciated the welcome that you gave me at that time, and I am overwhelmed with the one you are giv- ing me this morning. The circumstances are different now than what they were in 1948. I don't happen to be running for election this time, but I am very much interested in the outcome of this campaign. In fact, I am more interested in winning this time than I was in 1948 — if that is possible. I think I told you in 1948 that the Presi- dent is virtually a prisoner. I think I have served about time enough in that situation — as a prisoner of the people of the United States — and it's time for somebody else to take over. That is why I decided a long time ago that I would not run for reelection. I have received every honor from the hand of the American people that any man could ask for, and I have done my best to perform the duties of public office efficiently and hon- estly for more than 30 years. I think I have accomplished some good during that period, although there are a lot of people who won't admit it. It's the highest honor that can come to any man, to be President of the United States — the greatest republic and the greatest country in the history of the world — and I certainly appreciate having had that honor; but I don't think one man ought to try to hold it all his life. There are some people, you know, who want to turn back the clock, and destroy all the progress we have made in this country in the last 20 years. That would be a ter- rible mistake. What we need to do is to elect a new President who will take advan- tage of what has already been accomplished, and move ahead with the things that are necessary to increase our national prosperity and bring about a lasting peace in the world. That is what the Democratic Party is offering the American people in this cam- paign. I am going to spend my time in this campaign telling you what has been accom- plished, and why the country is in better shape than it has ever been before in its his- tory. And Governor Stevenson is going to tell you what there is in the future, and how he's going to make the future come about as the greatest age we have ever faced. We want to make sure that everybody knows what the record is, both the Demo- cratic side and the record of the Republican side. We want the whole story laid out be- fore the American people. I have been spending some time lately studying the Republican record in Congress during the years I have been President. I knew it had been bad, but I did not realize just how bad. But, my friends, that Re- publican record in Congress is horribly fantastic. 542 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 1 [241] I know that there are a lot of Republicans who are good American citizens. But I don't believe that branch of Republicans down in the Congress represent the views of these good Americans any more than they represent the man in the moon. In fact, they don't represent anybody but themselves. I think the truth of the matter is that the folks back home are sort of like I was. They don't fully realize how bad the record of the Republican Party has been. And the record has been made, it's down in black and white, in fine print in the Congressional Record. I know how to read the record. Now, the important thing about this is that if the Republicans should win in November — and I am sure they won't — but if they did, the National Government would follow the policies these Republicans in Con- gress have been voting for. That is not a pleasant prospect. In fact, it's a terrible prospect to contemplate. This Republican record is written down in black and white — as I said awhile ago — and it will speak for itself, and before I get through, I am going to lay that record out before you. Then I am going to lay out the record of the Democrats, and then if you don't vote for the Democratic ticket — for Governor Stevenson and John Sparkman — you are hard to please. Governor Stevenson is an able and ex- perienced leader, who has dealt very suc- cessfully with the problems of government. He did not seek the nomination. He did not make any deals or commitments to get it. The Democratic convention nominated him simply because he was the best man for the job. I am looking forward to the time when I can turn over to him the duties of the office which I now occupy. I am satisfied that the great programs we have developed during the last 20 years will be safe in his hands, and I am going to leave things in his hands and go out and have the best time any man ever had in this country. Now I sincerely hope that you good peo- ple will do for Governor Stevenson just what you did for me. I hope you will give him the great State of Ohio by an overwhelming majority, and we can continue down the road of good times for everybody in this great country. note: In the course of his remarks on September i the President referred to John J. Kane, Chairman of • the Board of Commissioners of Allegheny County, Pa., Mayor David L. Lawrence of Pittsburgh, Michael V. DiSalle, Democratic candidate for Sena- tor from Ohio, Governor Adlai Stevenson, Demo- cratic candidate for President, and Senator John ' Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President. * 241 Labor Day Address in Milwaukee. September 1, 1952 I AM very glad to come to Milwaukee and speak to you tonight. Milwaukee is a great city in a great State — a State that has a long, proud record of progressive government. A lot of the progressive measures that the State of Wisconsin adopted many years ago became part of the New Deal — and were spread all over the country from here. Wis- consin has a great liberal tradition which was made famous by the two Bob LaFollettes. I served with young Bob in the Senate, and he is one of the finest men I have ever known. I am sure that this year Wisconsin will return to that tradition and elect a United States Senator you can be proud of. I am especially glad to be here on Labor Day. This is our day to honor the working men and women of America. It is also a day that marks the official opening of an election campaign — at least on the Demo- cratic side. The Republicans don't seem to attach much importance to Labor Day. I am going to get a great deal of satis- faction out of the presidential campaign this year. In the first place, we have a splendid 543 [241] Sept. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents candidate for the job. And in the second place I won't have to do so much of the work myself, this time. I don't believe the Democratic Party has ever had a candidate better qualified to be President of the United States than we have this year in Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. You people here in Wisconsin are close enough to Illinois to know what a fine record he has made down there as Governor. It is a record of fairness and firmness, without favoritism. It is a record of steady progress in social legislation. During his term, more good legislation has been adopted than in any similar period in the State's history. Under Adlai Stevenson, Illinois has in- creased its workmen's compensation benefits 28 percent. It has increased its unemploy- ment compensation benefits 34 percent. Illinois has nearly doubled its grants to the public schools. Public employees have been authorized to come in under social secu- rity. Labor unions have been allowed to create cooperative health centers — offering better medical care at costs the average citi- zen can afford. What's more, there is no little "Taft-Hartley" law in Illinois to plague the workingman. That is not all. Governor Stevenson savfed public housing in his State by vetoing a bill which would have wrecked it. He has worked to promote the cause of civil rights. And he has been adamant in oppos- ing encroachments on the individual liberties of the citizens of Illinois. Moreover, he has greatly increased the iefnciency of his State Government. He brought the State police under civil service. He got rid of State employees who didn't work — and raised the salaries of those who did. Adlai Stevenson will be a great, progres- sive President. And his running mate, John Sparkman, will be of great help to him and to the people. Senator Sparkman has made a wonderful record. He has been a leader in the fight to protect and help small business. He has been in the forefront of our work for better homes. He has been a stalwart in the an- nual fight for rent control and for effective price controls. He has worked hard for aid to our schools. He has strongly supported all our farm programs and all our work for public power, and our efforts to undo the damage of Taft-Hartley. There are few Senators, north or south, who have worked as hard for the plain peo- ple of this country as John Sparkman, the tenant farmer's son from Alabama. The Democratic candidates for President and Vice President have had experience in high elective public office. Both of them have made fine records. Both of them have proved that they are able men and good friends of labor. Now, I suppose the Republicans will raise a great hullabaloo because I have come to this hall on Labor Day and said that the Democratic candidates are friends of labor. According to the Republicans, there seems to be something bad about being a friend of labor, something bad about Democrats be- ing friends of the farmer, something bad about our party being interested in the wel- fare of all the people. Well, let me say this to you. The Demo- cratic Party has a long, long record of friend- ship and support for the working men and women of America — and a long, long record of friendship for all the 150 million people who cannot afford a paid lobbyist in the Capital. We have tried to improve working conditions and living standards. And we have succeeded. What's more, we shall keep it up. The Democratic Party is going right ahead, fighting for the welfare of all the people of America. The record makes very plain what we have done and what we will continue to do. We have fought for the farmer just as hard as we have fought for labor. We have done the same thing for all the groups in our population. We have done this because we know that our national welfare cannot be 544 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 1 [241] divided. We know that the welfare of each group is dependent on the welfare of all the others. We are proud that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. That's the way it has been and that's the way it will be under the new leadership of Adlai Steven- son. It's a good thing the people have the Democratic Party to count on. For it's a sure thing they cannot count on the Repub- lican Party. The Republicans are still the party of the special interests, still the errand boys of the big lobbies, still the ones who want to exploit labor and the farmers and the consumers. The only thing different about them this year is that they are trying to hide behind a new face — their lonely, captive candidate. They have tried disguises before. They always try to put a new face on the elephant at election time. But the disguise never works because the rest of the elephant is too big to hide — and the rest of the elephant has the record of Republican reaction written all over him. The Republicans are trying to cover up their record. They are campaigning on the idea that it is time for a change. But they don't come right out and tell you the kind of a change they really want. That is what I think you ought to know and that is what I am going to tell you. And I am going to prove it by the Republican record. The Republican record is one of constant, nagging opposition to all the great progres- sive measures that our country has adopted in the past 20 years. They fought these things every step of the way; they don't want to admit now that any good has been accom- plished; and they are going to undo these things and turn the clock back if they ever get a chance. Take the matter of providing jobs for peo- ple who want them. We have full employment now — 62 mil- lion jobs, more and better job opportunities than ever before in history. Not only are the jobs available, but wages are good, too. In fact, wages are at an alltime high. Now, is that what the Republicans want to change? I'm afraid it is. The Repub- licans in the House of Representatives voted against the full employment bill almost two to one. Actually, the big money boys like a little unemployment and low wages. Remember the last time they held office — they steered this country into the worst depression we ever had. And there's nothing in their rec- ord to give any of us confidence that they wouldn't do it again. Remember, back in 1933 there were less than 3 million union members in this coun- try. Jobs were scarce, wages were poor, and the workingman was getting a raw deal all across the board. Today the situation is very different. Our American trade unions have more than 16 million members and the workingman is getting a fair deal. Now, do the Republicans want to change that? I'll say they do. A lot of them would get a big kick out of doing just a little union busting. They would be glad to go right back to the days of "yellowdog" contracts and labor spies. It was the Republicans who fought the Wagner Act in 1935. It was the Repub- licans who fought the minimum wage law in 1938. It was the Republicans who dreamed up and put across the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947. You would think they might have learned something in 1948. But they didn't. Look at the record of the last 4 years. In 1949 almost every single Republican in Congress voted against repeal of the Taft-Hartley law. Then they tried to keep us from raising the minimum wage to 75 cents. And just 3 months ago almost every one of them lined up on the side of the steel corporations and against labor in the steel case. When you look at the record, I don't think there is much doubt about the kind of change the Republicans want so far as labor is concerned. 545 [241] Sept. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents Now look for a moment at social security. Under Democratic leadership the Govern- ment has recognized that it has a responsi- bility for the general welfare of its citizens. We have passed social security laws to pro- vide unemployment insurance and old-age insurance, and to help needy old people and dependent children and provide aid to the blind. When the Republicans say it's time for a change, do they mean they are going to take your social security benefits away? That's not what they are telling you now, but look at the record. Almost to a man the Republicans in Con- gress opposed the original social security law in 1935. They fought against improv- ing it in 1939. And in that terrible 80th Congress, they even took insurance protec- tion away from nearly a million people. In the last 4 years, it's been the same way. The House Republicans voted ten to one to block the great social security improvements of 1949. And just last May they did it again. They lined up two to one against increasing old-age insurance benefits and public assistance payments to meet the in- creased cost of living. A lot of them found out they had stepped into a hornet's nest on this one, and they had to change their votes when the bill was brought up again later on. The Republican candidate for President made a speech the other day and said that all Americans of all parties now support so- cial security. I guess he didn't know about the Republican record in Congress. He could find out a lot of things by examining that record. He ought to give it some study. You ought to give it some study, too — you and all other Americans. That's the way you can find out what the Republicans really mean when they say it's time for a change. Apparently, they mean it's time to change our policy of building decent homes for low- income families. Eighty percent of the Re- publican Congressmen voted this spring to gut the public housing program. Apparently they mean it's time to change our policy of developing the power from our rivers for the benefit of all the people. Over 80 percent of the Republican Congressmen have voted time after time, at the bidding of the private power lobby, to sabotage our public power program any way they can. Apparently they mean it's time to change our policy on rural electrification. Over 80 percent of the Republican Senators went on record three separate times last year in favor of cutting funds for REA cooperatives. Apparently they mean it's time to change our policy on soil conservation. Seventy- five percent of the Republican Senators voted just 3 months ago for a crippling slash in our soil conservation program. Apparently they mean it is time to change our policy of stabilizing prices to prevent runaway inflation. Seventy-nine percent of the Republicans in the House voted this year to scuttle all price controls. Every time I hear the Republicans moan about high prices I get angry. They ganged up in Congress in 1946 and voted to ruin OP A and kill price controls. In 1947 and 1948 and 1949 they opposed every effort to get controls restored, even on a standby basis. Then in 1950 when Korea came along, they tried their best to cripple the new controls bill at the start. And what they weren't able to accomplish the first time around, they tried hard to put across in 1951 and again this year. These are some of the things the Repub- licans would like to change. They may tell you something different, but the Republican Party has written its record in Congress where it is plain to see. In my whole ex- perience as President, a great majority of the Republicans in Congress have almost always voted wrong — against the welfare of the peo- ple and for the special interests. I am glad for the sake of my country and for the sake of my party that the Democratic record is far different. During these same years, a sizeable majority of the Democrats in Congress have almost always voted right. 546 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 1 [241] Take the great issues of the last 7 years, for- eign and domestic, and you will find as I have, that 60, 70, 80 percent of the Demo- crats have been on the right side — the liberal side, the people's side. You will also find — and it follows nat- urally— that with more Democrats in Con- gress, and fewer Republicans, the more good legislation gets adopted. You all know what happened in the Republican 80th Con- gress. And I think we could all agree that in the last Congress, the 82d Congress — where there were almost as many Repub- licans as Democrats — our liberal programs had very tough going. But in the 81st Congress — the one elected in 1948, where the Democrats had a real majority — we passed more progressive legis- lation than during the entire previous decade. Now, I hope this little bit of history makes clear to you what the problem is in the con- gressional elections this year. We don't need just a few more Democrats than Re- publicans in Congress; we need a lot more Democrats so that the liberal majority in our party will be big enough to outvote the over- whelming number of reactionaries in the Republican Party. It is not time — it will never be time — for the kind of change that would hit this coun- try if the Republicans won in November. The record shows what they stand for and what they want to do. The people of Amer- ica just cannot afford to take a risk like that. You know, if the Republicans don't wake up and reform, it wouldn't surprise me if they never did win another national election. That seems to worry some people these days. There are those who go around saying that no matter what the Republicans are like, you'd better vote them into office this time. Otherwise, the Republican Party might dis- appear. And that, they say, would ruin the two-party system. This is an appeal to charity. The answer should be simple: "We'll vote for you when you reform. We'll vote for you when you prove that you can run the country for the good of the people, but not before." And I am not talking about reform at election time for campaign purposes. I am talking about the kind that shows up on the record between elections. No party deserves to be kept alive just out of kindheartedness or charity. We don't run our country to keep political parties alive. We run our political parties to keep the country alive — alive and strong and grow- ing. Now, I don't want you to misunderstand me, but there is one thing I agree with the Republicans about. It is time for a change. But not the kind of change they are thinking of. It is time for a change from the endless campaign of Republican opposition to progress. It is time for a change from the "big lie" — from the brazen Republican efforts to falsify history, to smear and ruin innocent individ- uals, to trample on the basic liberties of American citizens. It's time for a change, all right, for a change to a situation where our Government will not be so hamstrung by Republican ob- struction in building a better America and a safe and peaceful world. Now, to bring that about, we have to send enough Democrats to Congress to give the new Democratic President a real working majority that will carry out the Democratic platform. This, my friends, is the way to get a change in Washington — the kind of change that helps the workers of our country — and all the people. So when the Republicans urge upon you that "it's time for a change," don't hesitate to take them up on it. Take them at their word and vote Democratic. Don't be deceived. Don't be deceived by anything the Republicans may tell you this election year. Remember who they are and what they are. Remember their record. If you do that, I have no doubt about how this election will come out. Then this country, which we all love so much, will be starting on a bright new chap- ter in the history of progress for us all. The 547 [241] Sept. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents Congress will be firmly Democratic. And our next President will be Adlai Stevenson. note: The President spoke at 8:30 p.m. in the Sports Arena in Milwaukee, Wis. The meeting was sponsored by Labor's Political League, consisting of unions of the Congress of Industrial Organizations and the American Federa- tion of Labor. The address was broadcast nationally. 242 Rear Platform Remarks in Ohio and West Virginia. September 2, 1952 [1.] Cincinnati, Ohio (Rear platform, 8:35 a.m.) Than\ you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad to be here in Cincinnati this morning, especially in an election year, when we are starting out on a campaign to elect a new Democratic President of the United States. Naturally, one of the first things I think about, when I come to Cincinnati at a time like this, is the fact that this is Bob Taft's hometown. I have known Bob for a long time, and while we have disagreed about many things, the personal relationship be- tween Bob and myself has always been friendly. You know, Bob is intellectually honest, and that is more than you can say for a lot of Republicans. I thought the Republicans were going to nominate him for President this time — and he was my candidate. But the Governor of New York took the nomi- nation away from him again, just like he did in 1948, although this time he did it by proxy. Now it is not for me to say whom the Republicans ought to nominate, but it does seem to me that they are a little unfair to Bob Taft. Bob Taft certainly represents what the Republican Party stands for. He has had more to do with making the Repub- lican record than anyone else. And the Re- publican Party, like the Democratic Party, must run on its record. There is no getting around that. If the American people had a chance to vote for Senator Taft, they would at least know what they are getting. Whether you agree with him or not, you must admit that he is thoroughly familiar with the issues in- volved in running the Government of this country, and he has taken a stand on them. However, the Republican Party turned him down. I think that was terrible. He was my candidate — on the Republican ticket. That looks to me like an effort to run out on their record and disguise what their party really stands for. I don't think this effort at disguise is going to be successful. I don't believe the Republican Party can hide its record behind a new face. When it comes to taking a stand on the is- sues, the Republican candidate for President is in an extremely difficult position. If he comes out in favor of social security, or farm price supports, or minimum wage, or fair labor laws, or housing, then he is in the position of saying "me too" to the Demo- crats. And most Republicans think that is an awful thing to do. They are wrong, of course. On the other hand, if he comes out against these things, the people won't vote for him, because he is taking a position against their welfare and against the welfare of the country. I sympathize with him because of the fix he's in. I have watched with interest the turning and twisting he has had to do in an effort to go both ways at the same time, without getting anywhere. I saw one speech he made awhile back, which said in effect that the things the Democrats have done are good, and every- body now agrees with him, but we ought not to do anything else like it because it would ruin the country. If you can beat that, I'll pay for it. That doesn't seem to me to be a very strong position. 548 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 2 [242] Incidentally, he was wrong when he said that everybody now agrees with these things, as he can find out for himself if he would do a little research on the record of the Re- publican Party in Congress. I am asking him right now to read all the fine print in the Congressional Record, and he will find out a lot of things he doesn't know now. I think you will find, as the campaign goes on, that the Republican candidate for President will discover more and more that there is nothing for him to do except to use the typical Republican approach: that is, to stay away from the issues, and spend his time abusing the Democrats, particularly the President of the United States. The Democratic Party is going into this campaign in a very strong position. We have made a record in the last 20 years that is unequaled in the history of this country or any other country in the history of the world. We have nominated a man for President who is well-qualified for the job. It will take hard work to win this campaign, just as it does in every campaign, but we are going to work hard, and we are going to win. Remember what I told you when I was here in 1948: that we would win. You didn't believe me. But we did win, and this time I won't have to work so hard, be- cause I am going to have a lot of help to win. I am sure that the Democrats in Ohio are going to do their part. You know, I carried Ohio in 1948, and nobody thought it could be done. I am sure that you will carry the State for Governor Stevenson, and that you will elect a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Sena- tor; and that you will send more Democratic Congressmen to the House of Representa- tives. When you do that, our country will be able to go forward with new vigor in building our national prosperity and securing a last- ing world peace. Now I want you to go home and I want you to talk to your neighbors, and I want you to tell them that the country's safety is wrapped up in what you do on election day, just as it was in 1948. I don't believe any of you — even the mean- est, low-down Republicans in the world — are sorry that I was elected in 1948. Now, remember that the welfare of this country is wrapped up in what you do on election day. Go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and the country will be safe. [2.] Parkersburg, West Virginia (Rear platform, 12:45 p.m.) Thank you very much for coming out to meet me. I am glad to be back in West Virginia and I am going to have a fine after- noon traveling across your State and talking to people on the way. I went out to Milwaukee last night and gave the people there some hard facts about the Republican Party. I told them the truth — which is that the National Repub- lican Party is a reactionary and irresponsible outfit and no friend to the American people. And I proved that by citing the Republican record in the Congress on domestic issues. Important as domestic issues are these days, foreign policy overshadows them. The great problem of our foreign policy is whether we are going to have peace or war. I have been working constantly to overcome a great menace to world peace — the terrible menace of an armed and ruthless Com- munist imperialism. This is a long and difficult task — it is one that must be above party. We have made progress in these last few years in dealing with the threat. Our coun- try has put its strength into a great effort to defend and unite the free world. In this effort, Republicans and Democrats have joined together, without reference to party. This is as it should be, because in this effort, in this task of working for peace, only a united nation can succeed. In spite of this obvious fact, there has been, all along, a group of Republican obstruction- ists— men of little minds and mean aspira- tions— who have put party above country, 549 [242] Sept. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents and have worked for votes instead of peace. They are the same kind of men who wrecked the security of the United States and the hope of peace in the world, back in the 1920's after World War I. They were almost silenced by the great events of World War II, but today they have begun to crawl out of their hiding places to try to undermine the security of our coun- try once again. As our country has had to make sacrifices in the cause of peace, they have become bolder. Not only have they voted in Congress against the measures needed for world peace, they have tried to stir up the people to believe that these meas- ures are unnecessary. These men have tried to find votes for themselves in every difficulty we have en- countered, every loss we have suffered, every restriction we have had to undergo, every appropriation we have had to make, in the cause of peace. They have been reckless and unscrupu- lous. On one day, they have counseled us to cut off all our allies — and on the next, to plunge heedlessly toward a major war. They have been playing with fire, at home and abroad. So long as these men represented only a small minority of the Republicans in Con- gress, I was not too much concerned. While Senator Vandenberg lived, they were not a great danger. But after he died, their ranks began to grow. In vote after vote on funda- mental issues in Congress, it became clear that the Republicans were backsliding into their old habit of isolationism. Then these men hoped and planned to take control of the Republican convention, last July. In that they were frustrated, and the Republican nomination fell to a man who had helped vigorously to execute the great foreign policy on which this country is embarked. But this was not the end of the efforts of the Republican "snollygosters." The Republican candidate has been told that he can't have their support unless he adopts some of their ideas. He has been threatened with sabotage from within unless he will join in the wild and reckless ranting of men who don't care what happens to world peace if they can get elected. There have been some masterminds at hand, in the Republican councils, to show him how to be a hypocrite in a few easy lessons. One of these Republican masterminds is a man who helped in the formulation of our foreign policy. He knows what a precari- ous situation the world is in. He knows how easy it would be to start a war. But he is perfectly willing to have the Republican Party, and the Republican candidate, say things that increase the risk of war, simply in order to get votes. Let me give you an example of what these Republican masterminds are doing and saying now. They have started to talk loosely about liberating the enslaved peoples of Eastern Europe. Now the fate of the people in the Soviet borderlands is one of the greatest and most terrible tragedies of human times. Here are countries which suffered dreadfully from Nazi oppression and the ravages of war. These are peoples to whom the Kremlin promised freedom and independence in the last war — only to break that promise once the Red armies had moved in. We shall never forget these people. We shall never cease working to help these peo- ple gain their rightful chance for freedom. We must never treat their plight, or their endeavors to relieve it, as matters for partisan debate. Millions upon millions of decent human beings are going through a dread- ful agony and it is not for us to play cheap politics with their needs and fears and hopes. Yet, that is exactly what some of those Republicans have begun to do. They are telling us we must undertake to liberate these people — and do it right now. It is hard to tell from their vague state- ments exactly what these Republicans mean by this. If they mean that they deplore the Soviet seizure of the once free states of Eastern Europe, I am glad to hear it. If they mean that they will not accept the perma- 55° Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 2 [242] nent Soviet enslavement of these nations, I am glad to hear this, too. If they mean our country should do all it can to keep alive the culture and the spirit and the hopes of once-free people, I am with them all the way. If the Republicans mean that they look forward to the time when the growing strength of the free nations makes the Krem- lin realize it must honor its promise of 7 years ago, and give these people back their chance for freedom — then those are my sentiments exactly. If these are the things the Republicans mean, then it is natural that I should wel- come them. For they express, precisely, the firm policy of this administration and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Remember that in 1941 it was President Roosevelt who refused to recognize the brutal Soviet seizure of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. We have never accepted that aggressive act. Remember, too, that on Navy Day in 1945, and at the opening of Congress in 1946, and many, many times since, I have stated that America will always work for the return of freedom and in- dependence to the people who have been deprived of them by force or by subversion. Remember that by all means short of war, your Government has helped to save the freedom of the countries which the Soviets have threatened since the war. We have helped to save Greece, Turkey, Iran, South Korea, southern Asia, and all of Western Europe. We have helped to save these vital areas and we are doing everything we can to join their growing strength in the common defense of the free world and to prevent a third world war. We are working now to help the thou- sands of brave people who manage to flee west, through the Iron Curtain. Through the Voice of America we are bringing truth and encouragement to those who have to stay behind. We are helping the one nation which has succeeded, up to now, in breaking the Soviet stranglehold. In these and other positive ways, your Government is showing that we have not forgotten the people whom the Soviets have enslaved. There is no way to do more than this now without using force. To try to liberate these enslaved people at this time might well mean turning these lands into atomic battlefields. Maybe the Republicans don't realize this, but the people who are on the spot in Europe know very well that talk of liberation under present circumstances is war talk. That is why these Republican statements have caused so much concern among our friends in Europe. After all, our allies there have signed up with us for combined defense of freedom. They have not signed up to join in a crusade for war. Now, I am perfectly convinced — and I hope our allies will understand — that the Republicans do not intend by what they say to pledge this country to a frightful, atomic war in order to roll back the Iron Curtain by force. Yet, if they don't want war, why do they tell us they have some new and posi- tive proposal to help the people behind the Iron Curtain? If they don't mean war, what is it they do mean? Do they mean insurrection by the satellite peoples? Nothing could be worse than to raise false hopes of this in Eastern Europe. Nothing could be worse than to incite uprisings that can only end by giving a new crop of vic- tims to the Soviet executioners. All Euro- peans know quite well that insurrection in the Soviet borderland these days could only be successful with armed support from the outside world. If the Republicans don't mean to give that armed support — and I am sure they don't — then they are trying to deceive their fellow citizens at home and playing cruel, gutter politics with the lives of countless good men and women behind the Iron Curtain. If the Republicans don't mean war or in- surrection, what do they mean? Well, I'll tell you. They are trying to get votes and they don't care how they get them. They don't care if they frighten our allies. They don't care if they make the masters of the Kremlin trigger-happy. I am afraid they 551 [242] Sept. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents don't care about anything except votes in November. What they are trying to do is play on the natural desire of all Americans to see justice done. And they are especially concerned to stir up all our citizens who have ties of blood or culture with the people of Eastern Europe. They want to fool these good Americans into thinking the Republicans have some new, cheap, easy, painless way to give the people of the "old country" their freedom once again. It is not a pleasant thing for me to have to come here and tell you that Republican lead- ers have stooped so low. It is not an easy thing for me to see their respected candi- date— who \nows better — being used as spokesman for selfish politicians who will say anything they think will help them to power. Surely, the Republican candidate must know the Iron Curtain and the Kremlin walls will not come tumbling down from a few blasts on a campaign trumpet. Now I am sorry I had to talk about such a serious subject on my visit here. But there is one thing that might as well be plain from the outset of this campaign. If the Republicans insist on dragging for- eign policy into partisan politics, I am com- pletely prepared to keep the record straight. We have made some mistakes in foreign policy, of course, but, on the whole, our record is one of great constructive accomplishments. And while we have been making our rec- ord, the Republicans have been making theirs by their votes in Congress. Having studied that record, I can say with some assurance that they are in no position to point a finger of scorn. So, I say, if they want to make an issue of foreign policy, let them come ahead. We are ready. But I do hope that from now on, they will debate foreign policy issues in a way that does not jeopardize our defensive alliances, endanger our security, and raise the risk of new world wars. [3.] Clarksburg, West Virginia (Rear platform, 3 : 10 p.m.) It is a very great pleasure to me today to be back in Clarksburg once more. I have had some very happy times in this town. My Press Secretary is a graduate of VMI, and he claims he didn't go to school when Stonewall Jackson was a professor there. I don't know whether that is true or not. My Secretary of Defense came from here, too — Louis Johnson, of whom I am very fond — one of the great national commanders of the American Legion. I wish we had somebody like him that we could put in charge of that organization now; it certainly needs somebody like that. When I was here in 1948, 1 was trying to get you to elect a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. Well, I am back here on the same errand now, but I have another candidate for President this time. I hope you will vote for him. I hope all of you listened to Governor Stevenson's speech yesterday. If you will just listen to what he has to say, you will find that he stands foursquare on the Democratic platform, and that when you make him President the for- ward-looking steps which the Democratic Party has taken in the last 20 years will be continued. I am out trying to inform you on what the Democratic Party has done to make this country great, and Governor Stevenson is going to tell you what is going to happen in the future when he becomes President. And he will make a great President. There is one thing I am very anxious for you to do. It doesn't do any good to elect a Democratic President if you elect a Congress that faces the other way. I want you to send this Senator back — Harley Kilgore is my good friend. He and Matt Neely are al- ways on the right side of all the questions when they come before the Congress and the welfare of this country. I served with both of them a long time in the Congress, and I am very fond of both of them. They are both good Senators. And I know very 552 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 2 [242] well you are going to send Harley Kilgore back; but that is not all you ought to do, you have got to send a Congressman down there, Cleve Bailey. [ Voice : That's right!] I see I have complete agreement over here, and I hope everybody feels the same way about it. He is a great Congressman, Cleve Bailey is, and he has been on the right side of all these questions; and if you will just give us a Congress along with the new President, we will continue to go forward. We can't afford to let the Republicans get control of the Congress. All you need do is to look at the record of the Democrats and the Republicans to come to the con- clusion that it would be the most dangerous thing you can possibly do — to let the Re- publicans get control of the Government of the United States. The Democrats have a record of which they can be proud. We have improved wages and working conditions in the last 20 years. We have saved farms and homes from mortgage foreclosures. We have in- sured bank deposits — and I want to say to you that there are more homeowners in the United States now than ever before in the history of the country. That means homes in cities, and it means homes on the farm that are owned by the people that live in them. We have insured bank deposits — and there hasn't been a bank failure where any- body lost any money in the last 10 years. I am saying that advisedly. We developed the rivers for the benefit of all the people, and not for just a few of the special inter- ests. We have taken steps to conserve the soil and other precious natural resources. We have helped the American people get decent homes to live in — as I said awhile ago — there are more homeowners now than there ever were in the history of the country. We have provided social security for old people, and for the needy. We have made the United States a better place in which to live, and made it possible for most of our citizens to lead happier lives than ever before. We have turned away from the paths of isolationism and made our country the re- spected leader of the world in the cause of freedom and peace. Every one of you knows that these things are true. I want to point out a few things about the people who want to unseat the Democrats, and why you don't want to let them do it. In the first place, they are trying to tell you that all the good things I have just repeated to you are not true. Well, you know how you are fixed at home. I wonder how many of you would like to go back to the apple-selling days of 1932? I don't be- lieve you would. I don't think they are going to get very far with their misstatements of facts. The important thing is that by their votes in Congress, the policy they are following has been one of constant obstruction and reaction. They were against social security. In fact, when that good-for-nothing 80th Congress got control of the Government, they took a million people off the rolls. They will do it again, too — more than that to you — if you let them do it. They were against minimum wages — they voted against the 75-cent minimum wage and they voted against the first minimum wage law. They have constantly tried to weaken the farm programs. You remember what they did to the farmers in 1948. In 1947, when I went out to the farmers and told them what was happening to them, they voted against them. They are going to do it this time, too. They have been against public power. They have been against low-rent housing. They have tried to sabotage price and rent controls, and they have been against prac- tically everything that is for the welfare of the everyday man and the common people. I know you wouldn't want to turn this country over to the Republican Party and 553 [242] Sept. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents let them try to take it back to the days of McKinley. They are still thinking in 1896. They haven't come to life yet. We have had enough of that kind of thing when you had the 80 th Congress. That is just a sample of what you would get if they get control of the whole Government. You see, I was there to head them off when the 80th Con- gress was in. You are going to elect Stevenson, Presi- dent and John Sparkman, Vice President. You are going to elect a Democratic delega- tion from West Virginia to the House. You are going to send Harley Kilgore back to the Senate. I wish I could go back there with him. I had more fun when I was in the Senate than I ever had in my life. I have had more trouble since I have been President than any man alive. I am also of the opinion that you are going to elect a Democrat to be Governor of West Virginia, as you always have done. From the looks of him, he will make a good one. I am more than happy to be here with you again. I hope that 4 years from now I can come back and tell you to elect another Democratic President and a Democratic delegation from West Virginia. That is what I am going to try to do, because I think — well, I am only 68, I ought to live to be 98; and in all that time you find out a lot of things. And I will, too. West Virginia is a most hospitable place. I am always pleased to come to West Vir- ginia. I have been in nearly every town in the State, and I have never been to one where I haven't been cordially treated and asked to come back. In fact, West Virginia tried to get me to put myself up to run for President again, but I decided that the best thing for the country would be for the Democratic Party to bring out some new faces and keep the country rolling for the next 20 years as it has in the last 20. Thank you very much. [4.] Grafton, West Virginia (Rear plat- form, 4 p.m.) Senator Neely, I appreciate that introduc- tion, and I would like very much to deserve it. It's a fine thing, you know, to have peo- ple like Senator Neely and Senator Kilgore, with whom I have served in the Senate, be- lieve that the President of the United States is just what he pretends to be: a representa- tive of the people. I am happy to be here again. I still recall the fine reception you gave me when I stopped here in 1948. I hope very much that you people will vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman this year, and that you will elect this grand Democrat for Governor, Mr. Marland. And I want you to be sure and send Harley Kilgore back to the Senate, and elect Robert Mollohan to the House of Representatives. I want you to send the whole Democratic delegation from West Virginia to the House of Representatives. I was here before, talking for another candidate for President, if you remember, and you were kind enough to believe in me and vote for me. Now I want you to vote for my successor, Adlai Stevenson, just as you would have voted for me if I had been nominated. When I was here in 1948, I talked to you about how the Republican candidate for Vice President — he is still Governor of Cali- fornia— was speaking here and had refused to mention the candidate for Senator on the Republican ticket. Now I understand that same fellow is running for Senator again against Kilgore, and I know he hasn't got any more chance with Kilgore than he had against Neely. I want you to be sure to give these Congressmen, and the Senator, and the Governor the necessary votes to keep West Virginia in the Democratic column. And I know that is what you are going to do. The Republicans have a lot of trouble en- dorsing certain of their people. They are having trouble again this year, not just in 554 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 2 [242] West Virginia but in a lot of other States as well. I know the Republican candidate for President must be sadly embarrassed by some of the people who are on the ticket with him this year. He is ashamed to endorse them, but he is not willing to come out against them. In fact, he's in a terrible fix. He is going to be in a worse fix than that before we get through with him. In 1948 I went out across the country and gave the people the facts on that "do-noth- ing" Republican 80th Congress. This year I am going to remind the people about some of the facts of the terrible Republican rec- ord, and bring the story up to date. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Surely you would think that every- body would be in favor of soil conservation. Nothing could be more important than sav- ing precious soil on which our very existence depends. The farmers in West Virginia understand what that means. I saw just the other day that over 99 percent of the farmland in West Virginia is in soil conservation districts. That is a wonderful thing. Now, what is the Republican attitude about this matter? I found that out shortly after I first came to the Senate. I remem- ber when we passed the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. You should have heard the whooping and hol- lering about regimentation and socialism that went up from most of the Republicans in that Congress. There was one of them — the one that would be Speaker of the House if you were foolish enough to elect a Republican House of Representatives — who said that if this act were passed, the farmers would "be dominated and regimented for all time." I wonder how many of you farmers in West Virginia believe that now? There was another one — the one who would be chairman of the powerful Appro- priations Committee in a Republican House of Representatives — who said this soil con- servation act was "an attempt to enslave the farmers." That has been 16 years now, and I haven't seen any farmers enslaved under the act yet. Indeed, the farmers of America have been enjoying more freedom year by year — free- dom from debt, freedom from want, free- dom from drudgery, freedom for happier lives for themselves and their families than ever before in the history of the world. But do you think the Republicans have learned anything? Not a bit of it. Just 3 months ago, 75 percent of the Republican Senators voted for a crippling slash in the soil conservation program. They won't dare brag to you about that when they come to West Virginia, and you be sure to ask them about it when they come over here. The story of Republican reaction can be illustrated many times over. Take rural electrification. This is one of the best pro- grams the Democrats have developed during these last 20 years. Here in your own State only 3 Y2 percent of the farms had powerline service when the Rural Electrification Ad- ministration was established. Today it is 82 percent. Isn't that an amazing record? Well, I can assure you it was made in spite of Republican opposition, which continues down to this day. The Republicans seem to want to live in the past. They approach the present very reluctantly, and they absolutely refuse to move ahead to the future. My friends, the issue in 1952 is this: Do you want to go backward with the party of reaction, or do you want to go forward with the Democratic Party, which is always look- ing forward, and looking out for the in- terests of the people? It is up to you to get out and work, if you believe that we should continue to march forward. Vote for your own inter- ests. Vote for a great future for your coun- try. In fact, I think we are facing the great- est age in history. We have put this Gov- ernment and this country in a position that 555 [242] Sept. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents no other republic or no other monarchy or empire has ever been in. We must keep that forward march going on, and you can't do it if you put a lot of reactionaries in control of the National Gov- ernment of this great Republic. Vote the Democratic ticket. Vote for these good Democrats in West Virginia, and we will continue to go forward, and continue to be prosperous. Thank you very much. [5.] Keyser, West Virginia (Rear plat- form, 6:20 p.m.) I don't know of anybody in the United States that I would rather have introduce me to a Democratic crowd than Harley Kilgore. Harley and I used to serve on a committee in the Senate, and we did some things that got me into a great deal of trouble. You can see by the type of candidate that you have here for the Senate, for Congress, for Governor, for all the other offices in your great State, that you can't do anything but vote Democratic. I am most happy to be here this after- noon. I have been wanting to come back to Keyser ever since November 1948 to thank you for the way you voted in that year. You had a good turnout in Mineral County, and you voted the Democratic ticket. That is a fine record, and I hope you will keep it up. I was out here then, campaigning for a man for President, and you voted for him. I am campaigning for another man for President now, and I hope you will vote for him just like you did for me. It is important to exercise your right as citizens. It is most important to keep the Government in the hands of the people. The ballot box is the only defense the peo- ple have against special privilege and special interest. As I said earlier today, there are 150 mil- lion people who can't afford to keep a lobby- ist in Washington, and the only lobbyist they have, who looks after their interests, is the President of the United States. And you must elect a President who believes in the welfare of the people as a whole and in the welfare of the whole country, and not in the welfare of just one or two special inter- ests. I don't care what those special interests are. You people here in Keyser know from your own experience that the welfare of any one part or group of this country is tied closely to the welfare of everybody else. If the farmers are not prosperous, you people here in Keyser feel it in your pocketbooks. If there is a shutdown in coal or steel, you know it, too; and you know it right away. I know you here felt this last steel strike. I did everything I could in honesty and fair- ness to prevent that strike, because of na- tional defense and the welfare of the country as a whole. A lot of people wanted me to act unfairly in that strike, but I wouldn't do it. When laboring people have just and legitimate demands, and when those de- mands have been found to be fair by the appropriate Government body, it is not up to the President of the United States to act unfairly or unjusdy. Labor unions are not always in the right, but when they are in the right, they ought not to be penalized just because they are labor unions. And yet that is what a lot of people want to do. They want to go after the unions and the working people every chance they have. And this is true of the majority of the Re- publicans in Congress — and I am sorry to have to say that, but it is true. They have given us a national labor law that bears down on people who belong to unions, whether the unions are right or wrong. That is not a fair approach to this Government of ours. Some day we will get a labor law that is fair to both sides. That is all we want. That is all you want. That is all laboring men want. That is what the Democratic Party is working for. The Government has to be fair, not only to labor but to every group in the country. 556 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 2 [242] Republican party leaders do not seem to recognize that very simple principle. And that is the main trouble with the Republican Party. You ought to study the record they have made in Congress. If you will study that record, you will be surprised. I was — and I have been there right along. But when I began to look up the record of those birds in the Congress — well, it was horrible. And it surprised me when I saw it all collected together in one place. The Republican candidate for President said recently that all Americans were in favor of social security by now. That just isn't so. The voting record of the Republi- cans in Congress shows that whenever it comes to extending social security coverage, or improving the benefits of the common everyday man, they are against it. That is just an example of what the ma- jority of the Republicans in Congress are against. I expect to spend a good deal of time during this campaign telling the people all about the record of the Republicans in the Congress. That is the only way you can find out how they would act, if they became able to control this Government. You know, they had a Congress back some years ago called the "do-nothing, good-for- nothing" 80th Congress, but they had a President who didn't believe in what that Congress was trying to do. And that Presi- dent went out and told the people exactly what that Congress did. And you know what happened in 1948. You don't want another 80th Congress. It will be the 84th Congress this time, I think. But that Congress ought to be a Congress that will support the new Presi- dent, and that will work for the welfare and benefit of the people. Now you have a candidate for Senator here who ought to be in that Congress. I know you are going to send him back there. You have Mr. Harley Staggers here for the House of Representatives, and I know you are going to send him back. And if you do that, and elect a Democratic Governor in West Virginia — as I am sure you will — I never met your candidate for Governor until today, but if I were in West Virginia I wouldn't think about voting for anybody else, he looks all right to me. Now, weigh these things carefully. Find out what the record is of the people who are trying to become the controllers of the Government of the United States. When you find out that record, you can't do but one thing, and that is to send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, John Sparkman to pre- side over the Senate, and these wonderful men in West Virginia on the Democratic ticket who are running for the Senate and the Congress. Thank you very much. [6.] Martinsburg, West Virginia (Rear platform, 8:15 p. m.) I am not running for President this time. The last time I went through here, I was running for President, and I didn't stop, and I apologize for that. I wish I had. The Democratic Party has a wonderful candidate for President this time, the Gover- nor of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson. He has no commitments to anyone, or to any group. He is interested in the welfare of the average citizen, and in leading the way to world peace. He will make a great President, and I hope you will all vote for him in Novem- ber, just like you did for me last time — in spite of the fact that I didn't stop and talk to you. I understand that you have been troubled by unemployment here in Martinsburg, and I am sorry that is the case. I hope it will soon be remedied. There are more jobs in the country as a whole, these days, than ever before in its history. In spite of this, there are a few areas where there has been some local unemployment. We in Washington have been trying to correct that condition, by channeling Government orders to the towns that need them most. We know now that the prosperity of the country is all of one piece, and that if any one group or an area suffers, it is bad for everybody else in the country. That is why 557 [242] Sept. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents we have Government programs that benefit the farmer and the worker and the business- man. There are no favorites played. They are all considered, when the policy of the Government is worked out. To do this, we must have not only a Presi- dent who will work for the people, but we must have a Congress that will vote in the interests of all the people. You all know what happened back in 1947, in 1948, when we had that "good-for- nothing" 80th Congress on our hands. If I hadn't been there, the country would have been in an awful fix, sure enough. They thought they were going to put it in an awful fix, but we fooled the pollsters and 87 per- cent of the press at that time, because they had a notion that the country boy from Mis- souri couldn't be elected, but he gave them something to think about. If we have a Republican Congress, they won't improve. They will be just exactly as that old 80th Congress was. They still nibble and nag at social progress, when they aren't able to stop it completely. If the Republicans were to win this fall — and God forbid that they should — it would he the 80th Congress all over again, but this time it would be much worse. It is more necessary than ever to have a good Congress — a Democratic Congress — at a time like this, when national defense and foreign policy are as important as they are today. If we are to have security and peace, the Congress must do a lot of things that are not very popular. It must proceed to provide the draft laws, and for the huge sums for our armed serv- ices, and keep our economy strong at home by authorizing wage and price controls — and taxes must be high enough, and should be high enough, so that we can pay as we go. Nobody likes these things, but we have to have them, or we might lose our freedom. I have had trouble with the Republicans on all these things. This reminds me of some history concerning the. country here around Martinsburg. About 200 years ago this was frontier country. It was exposed to attack from the French and Indians com- ing down from Pittsburgh — Fort Duquesne at that time; it was not Pittsburgh. George Washington was a young man then, and he had the job of defending this frontier. He was in desperate need of men and money for this big job, but the legislature of his home State, Virginia, refused to pass a draft law, and it refused to vote enough money to carry on defenses in this part of the world. Washington did what he could, and got a big fort built at Cumberland, and a series of small blockhouses running down through here to Roanoke, Virginia; but he couldn't defend them properly. Time and again the enemy broke through, killing the settlers and burning the farms. Finally, the legislature woke up and passed the laws that Washington needed. Then the Indians were held back and the frontier was made safe. That is what we are faced with today, only it's on a worldwide basis instead of a statewide basis. Everything depends on our national legislature, the Congress. Only today, if the enemy breaks through just once, that may be the last chance we will ever have. So we must have a wise and courageous Congress that will give us the tools we need to defend ourselves and the peace of the world. If you send Harley Kilgore back to the Senate, and send Harley Staggers back to the House, and elect a Democratic Governor in West Virginia — he is a fine man, I have got acquainted with him today, and you ought to surely elect him — you voters here will be doing your part to make the country safe. I hope the other parts of the country will elect the same sort of liberal progressive Democrats. If they do that, we will be safe for another 4 years. And I am just as anxious, and intend to work just as hard^o win this election, as I did in 1948 for myself. I think the welfare 'of the world, the wel- fare of this great Republic of ours, depends 558 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 4 [243] entirely on what you voters do on November the 4th. I hope every single one of you will go to the polls on that day, and that you will see that your neighbors go to the polls on that day, and that you will vote the Demo- cratic ticket from top to bottom — and then the country will be safe for another 4 years. note: In the course of his remarks on September 2 the President referred to William A. Harlow, Chair- man of the Democratic Central Committee of West Virginia; Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio; Joseph H. Short, Secretary to the President; Louis Johnson, former Secretary of Defense, Senators Harley M. Kilgore and Matthew M. Neely, Representatives Cleveland M. Bailey and Harley O. Staggers, Robert H. Mollohan, Democratic candidate for Representa- tive, and William C. Marland, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of West Virginia; Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for Presi- dent; and Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President. 243 Remarks to the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. September 4, 1952 Mr. Secretary of Labor, Admiral Mclntire, distinguished guests, and members of this Committee that has done such great wor\ for the physically handicapped : I am very glad to be here today. It is always good to meet with you and share in your great work for the handicapped. This is the kind of work that gets close to the real needs of the people. You know, I have always believed that service to the people is the best measure of government. This Republic can endure and grow stronger year by year only as it answers the needs and fulfills the hopes of its citizens. That has been the American tradition throughout history. And that was the idea which prompted the setting up of this Committee 5 years ago. We recognized then that there were a lot of physically handicapped people in the Nation who weren't able to work or get a chance at jobs that they could do. So we started in to lay the groundwork for bring- ing millions of these people back into pro- ductive and useful citizenship. Since this Committee was formed, a great deal has been accomplished. For this suc- cess we have achieved thus far, a large part of the credit must go to our Chairman, Ad- miral Mclntire, and to the hard work of the executive committee and the splendid cooperation of States and communities throughout the whole land. In planning this year's observance of Em- ploy the Physically Handicapped Week, Ad- miral Mclntire and I decided that the doctors of our country could be brought closer into the whole rehabilitation and employment picture. At the suggestion of your executive committee, we decided to bestow a Physi- cian's Award annually to the doctor who had made the greatest contribution to the welfare and employment of the physically handicapped. I am happy to announce that the first win- ner is Dr. Henry H. Kessler of Newark, N.J. I want to congratulate Dr. Kessler for the wonderful work he has been doing. He has done a wonderful job. Right here I think I would like to tell you a little story about the physically handi- capped. In 1943, 1 think it was, I was mak- ing an inspection of the Mare Island Navy Yard in the capacity of chairman of a certain committee of the Senate of the United States — sometimes they didn't like to see me come — and I ran into a doctor at Mare Is- land, a naval captain, who was all wrapped up in this idea of rehabilitating those men who had lost arms and legs and eyesight, and fixing them so that they could be useful citizens once more. I went over to Brigham, Utah, and I found a colonel in the Army there who was doing 559 [243] Sept. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents the same thing. I never saw two more en- thusiastic men in my life as that naval cap- tain and that Army doctor. I got them together, and this comes out of it. Last year, I had the pleasure of announc- ing another award for the first time. I pre- sented the President's Trophy to George Barr of Chicago. This year, I have a similar pleasure, and this time the young man is also from Chicago. His name is Nils S. Josefson, President of the Paraplegics Manufactur- ing Co. Mr. Josefson's contribution in providing jobs for the handicapped has been outstand- ing. His firm has provided a place of em- ployment at Franklin Park, Illinois, for several dozen paraplegics. Recently, they branched out and hired people with other disabilities. Business has been so good they have even had to hire some nonhandicapped workers. Now, that's something! You see, they are doing as they would like to be done by. This is a remarkable story. Mr. Josefson was crippled for life when he was struck by an airplane wing tank aboard a carrier in the Pacific. But this did not damage his spirit or impair his talents as a radio tech- nician. Together with other graduates of Hines Veterans Hospital, he formed his company in February of 1951. There were 50 wheelchair workers who pooled their re- sources. They began doing work on small electronic parts, principally for radio and television sets. The going was tough. Orders were few. But the men persevered, and today this enterprise is a real success. Today, the majority of the workers at the Paraplegics Manufacturing Company are stockholders in the firm and face the future with confidence and hope. In just a few minutes, I am going to take a great deal of pleasure in giving Mr. Josef- son the trophy which he has so well earned. But before I do that, I want to talk with you a little while about where we have come in the work we are doing, here in this Com- mittee, and what lies ahead for us. I think that all of us can take some pride in what has been accomplished these past few years. Everywhere, all over the Nation, we are meeting people and reading about people who have conquered heavy handicaps. A few years ago, many of these people were considered hopeless cases. But today, medi- cal science and rehabilitation services have brought us to the point where the word hopeless must almost be abandoned. We used to think that people who were blind had nothing to look forward to but years of custodial care at private or public expense. Now, the blind are being taught to perform many jobs just as ably as people who can see. Moreover, we have so ex- tended our range of rehabilitation that today we are making progress toward overcoming other forms of disability, such as cerebral palsy, where it had been thought absolutely nothing could be done. In special schools and training centers throughout the Nation a lot of amazing re- sults are being achieved. Experts and skilled teachers are proving that — by patient, painstaking effort, and with modern methods — we can start the most severely handicapped child on a way of life that will enable him to play his part in society like a normal human being. In the years since World War II, we have seen some wonderful services provided for our disabled war veterans. This has been one of the greatest accomplishments of all. At the same time, we have seen a substantial growth of vocational rehabilitation programs for civilians. We have broken down bar- riers against employment of disabled persons in the Federal service and in private enterprise. These are real and solid gains. Look, for example, at the record of our veterans rehabilitation program: Some 600,000 disabled veterans of World War II have taken training since the war, and most of them have found useful work to do. The program for disabled veterans of the Korean 560 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 4 [243] conflict is now getting underway and I have no doubt it will be equally successful. On the civilian side, just in the last year some 66,000 Americans were rehabilitated and restored to jobs through our Federal-State programs and the work of voluntary agencies. Now, what kind of jobs are these handi- capped people doing? They are doing everything — and they are doing it well. We surely have proved by now there is no job that can't be handled by some handicapped worker. That used to be a theory; now we know it is a fact. The Veterans Administration has recently published a report showing that 40 percent of the disabled ex-servicemen were trained for professional or top-management jobs. Another 34 percent were trained for skilled trades. I am sure that many of them are now at work in defense industries working for the welfare of America just as they fought for it a few short years ago. Another 15 percent were trained in agriculture, and one out of every ten went into clerical and sales jobs. (I was just now made a salesman for the organization of this young man here, to whom I am going to present this trophy — he handed me a card.) Many of these rehabilitated veterans are working for their Government. Our Civil Service Commission has a long record of devotion to the handicapped, a record which is being made even brighter by Chairman Robert Ramspeck, formerly vice chairman of this Committee. The Commis- sion's employment policies are good, and I am happy to say that its policies are trans- lated into hiring practices. Now I want to say a word for the Secre- tary of Labor. His organization is in this with everything he has, and between the Secretary and Bob Ramspeck and Admiral Mclntire, we are getting the job done. From January 1951 through April of this year, the Federal Government employed more than 21,000 seriously handicapped workers. By April nearly 172,000 disabled veterans were in Federal employment. Many thousands of nonveterans were also at work in the Federal Service. In other words, we practice what we preach. The Federal Government is by no means the only employer that has found out how handicapped workers can do a job. The record shows that private employers are in- creasingly willing to place qualified workers on jobs they are prepared to do. Last year, employment service placements of handi- capped workers totaled 254,000. Included were 33,000 handicapped women — the larg- est number in any year since World War II. These are signs of progress. They indi- cate that the work we have been doing and the gospel we have been preaching here in this Committee is being translated into real action — action by public and private agen- cies; action at the Federal level and in the States and out in local communities all across the country. We have started something fine and good in these 5 years and I am proud of it and heartened by it. But we are still only work- ing around the edges of the problem which we face here in this great country. The problem itself is still enormously greater than our efforts to meet it are up to now. The trouble is that we are doing all kinds of fine work — but for far too few people. I am not talking about our work for service- men. We are providing for our veterans, I am glad to say. But our work for non- veterans is not nearly far enough advanced. There are thousands of disabled men and women in this country right now, who could be helped to become active, self-supporting members of society. But far too many of these people are not getting help. We have the knowledge, the methods, and the tools to restore the handicapped. But we are using these for only a fraction of the people who need them. And the people who need help — well, they are growing in number every year. Remember, last year a quarter of a million 561 [243] Sept. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents Americans became disabled and in need of rehabilitation — and I am talking about civil- ians, not members of our Armed Forces. This year, we must expect the total to be just as big or bigger. And last year our best efforts brought rehabilitation to fewer than 70,000. Of course, the first answer to these ter- rible figures is to cut down the dreadful num- ber of disasters on our highways and in some of our industries, like coal mining. That is the reason I have done everything I can to promote the cause of highway safety and industrial safety. We are making progress in industry — the new mine safety law, for one thing, is a real advance — but the accident rate on the highways of this country is still a national disgrace. And we must also step up our attack on crippling disease — polio, arthritis, heart trou- ble, and the rest. That's why your Govern- ment has been giving more and more atten- tion to programs of medical research. We must go on working to keep disabili- ties from happening. That is a task for all of us — for medical research and industry, for educators and public officials; everyone has a part to play. But of course, no matter how much we may do, there will still be thou- sands of newly disabled people every year, who need our help so they may help them- selves. We must broaden out our programs — our rehabilitation programs and our job place- ment work as well — until they are big enough to give the proper help to everyone who needs it. This is not just a matter of charity — not just a matter of doing good for people, only for their happiness and comfort. This is a matter of economics as well as social justice. It is not only that these people need our help. We need them. We need them as productive workers. We need them as good citizens. We need them as taxpayers. We cannot afford to waste our human re- sources any more than our natural resources. We must husband them both and use them both wisely if we are to succeed in building strength and security and peace for ourselves and for the free world. Whether or not our handicapped workers are going to be ready to help when the Na- tion needs them, and whether or not they, as individuals, will ever realize their own ambitions is up to us — those of us here and all of us in the United States. We can, if we will, give these neighbors of ours a chance. We can give them a chance to become full-fledged citizens of their communities, to get jobs, to rear their families and to live lives of dignity and satis- faction. Certainly, these are the things we seek for all Americans. We must remember that this is a problem of human lives, not just a matter of statistics. When we talk about the handicapped, we aren't dealing with figures. We are dealing with living people — with individual men, women, and children. It is our task to help our fellow human beings help themselves to win a real opportu- nity for good, productive, decent lives. This is the real crusade that we must under- take, not only here at home but throughout the world. From our earliest days, we Americans have done a great deal of dreaming, planning, and working for equality for all the people in the country. Mostly, what we mean by it is the chance for each man, woman, and child to develop to the limit of his or her capacity. And so we rightfully place em- phasis and value on the human worth and dignity of every individual — regardless of race or creed or color, regardless of social status, regardless of physical disability. There is no better way we practice this American gospel than in our programs for the physically handicapped among our citi- zens. This is important work, dedicated work, rewarding work. We need lots of public participation and lots of private par- ticipation in this work. I am sure this is what we will have — in greater measure year after year. I wish you Godspeed in this task of mak- 562 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 4 [244] ing our American promise come true for more and more of our fellow citizens. note: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in the Depart- mental Auditorium in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of Labor, and Vice Adm. Ross T. Mclntire, Chairman of the President's Committee on National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week. On August 15, the President signed Proclamation 2985 "National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week, 1952" (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 164), which designated the week beginning October 5, 1952, for the observance. 244 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Order Establishing a Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. September 4, 1952 I HAVE TODAY established a special Com- mission on Immigration and Naturalization, to study and evaluate the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States. Our immigration and naturalization pol- icies are of major importance to our own security and to the defense of the free world. Immediately after the war ended, we recog- nized the plight of the displaced persons; we acted to cooperate with other nations and to admit a share of these victims of war and tyranny into our own country. The dis- placed persons program has now been suc- cessfully concluded, but the free world faces equally grave and equally heart-rending problems in the continual stream of refugees and escapees from the Iron Curtain countries into Western Europe. These people add to the pressures of overpopulation in certain countries. Overseas migration from Europe has been dammed up by years of war and international economic disorder. While we have joined with other nations to meet such problems as these, our own immigration laws based on conditions and assumptions that have long ceased to exist, present serious ob- stacles in reaching a satisfactory solution. Humanitarian considerations, as well as the national interest, require that we reassess our immigration policies in the light of these facts. The United States must remain true to its great traditions and have an immigra- tion policy that strengthens our Nation at home and furthers our world leadership. The 82d Congress devoted much time and effort to this problem, but the bill which it passed was so defective in many important provisions that I could not give it my ap- proval. In my veto message, I expressed the hope that the Congress would agree to a careful reexamination of the entire matter. I suggested that the Congress create a repre- sentative commission of outstanding Amer- icans to make a study of the basic assump- tions of our immigration policy, the quota system and all that goes into it, the effect of our immigration and nationality laws, and the ways in which they can be brought into line with our national ideals and our foreign policy. The Congress did not act upon these suggestions. I do not believe that the matter should re- main where the Congress left it. The prob- lems of immigration policy grow more press- ing, and the inequities fostered by the new law require careful examination. I am, therefore, appointing this Commission in the belief that its recommendations will enable the next Congress to consider the subject promptly and intelligently. This Commis- sion will have the benefit of much informa- tion already drawn together in the field of immigration, including that developed by the committees of Congress in their long study of the problem. It should, therefore, be in a position to complete its study before the reconvening of the next Congress. I have directed the Commission to give particular consideration to: (a) The requirements and administration of our immigration laws with respect to the admission, naturalization, and denaturaliza- 563 [244] Sept. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents tion of aliens, and their exclusion and deportation; (b) The admission of immigrants into this country in the light of our present and prospective economic and social conditions and of other pertinent considerations; and (c) The effect of our immigration laws, and their administration, including the na- tional origin quota system, on the conduct of the foreign policies of the United States, and the need for authority to meet emergency conditions such as the present overpopula- tion of parts of Western Europe and the serious refugee and escapee problems in such areas. The members of the Commission are as follows: Philip B. Perlman of Maryland, Chairman (formerly, Solicitor General of the United States, City Solicitor of Baltimore, secretary of the State of Maryland, assistant attorney general of Maryland). Earl G. Harrison of Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman (attorney, formerly U.S. Commis- sioner of Immigration and Naturalization — and formerly dean of the Law School of the University of Pennsylvania) . Msgr. John O'Grady of Washington, D.C. (secretary, National Conference of Catholic Charities). Rev. Thaddeus F. Gullixson of Minnesota (president, Lutheran Theological Seminary of St. Paul, Minn., chairman, Minnesota State Displaced Persons Commission). Clarence E. Pickett of Pennsylvania (hon- orary secretary, American Friends Service Committee). Adrian S. Fisher of Tennessee (Legal Adviser to State Department, formerly Gen- eral Counsel of Atomic Energy Commission and Solicitor of the Department of Com- merce). Thomas G. Finucane of Maryland (Chair- man, Board of Immigration Appeals, De- partment of Justice). note: The Commission was established in the Ex- ecutive Office of the President by Executive Order 10392 "Establishing the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization" (3 CFR, 1949- 1953 Comp., p. 896). For the President's statement upon receiving the Commission's report, see Item 364. 245 Letter to Henry H. Fowler Asking Him To Serve as Director, Office of Defense Mobilization. September 5, 1952 Dear Mr. Fowler: I want to express my appreciation for your willingness to revise your personal plans in order to remain on duty in the Government until this December thirty-first, in lieu of leaving in September as had been previously agreed upon by you and Dr. Steelman. As I told you in the course of our discus- sion yesterday, it is my desire to free Dr. Steelman of his mobilization responsibilities in the immediate future, in order that he may resume his full-time role as Assistant to the President to work with me on a number of other matters during the remaining months of this year. This factor, coupled with your own re- sponsibilities and experience in the mobiliza- tion field, makes me especially glad that you will remain until December thirty-first. This makes it possible for me to ask you to serve as Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization, effective September eighth. We can take pride in the fact that, through a wise use of the priorities and allocations power, the Nation has come through the period of severest material and facilities shortages without impairment of the civilian economy, despite the necessary diversion of vast resources to the buildup of both our military production and our mobilization base. Due to the wise expansion of basic re- sources and facilities important for defense, the early shortages are being overcome while a well-ordered system of distribution of avail- able supplies continues to give the military 564 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 8 [246] and atomic energy programs their full re- quirements and the civilian economy an equitable distribution of the remainder. These accomplishments should not be allowed to obscure the fact that we are only halfway through to the achievement of the other longer-term objectives of our defense mobilization program. I am aware that you and Dr. Steelman, to- gether with representatives of the other de- fense agencies concerned with production, have been engaged in recent months in a review of where we stand, and in charting outlines of future action. In the period ahead there must be no let- down in our national effort to achieve these goals. The Nation cannot be permitted to falter for a single day, month or season in the work of defense mobilization which is the key to peace and security for America and the free world. I am well aware that your recognition of these factors in the current situation out- weighs the personal sacrifice involved in ex- tending your term of service for the Government. I realize that this new responsibility will necessitate the submission of your resigna- tion to Secretary Sawyer as Administrator of the National Production Authority in the Department of Commerce, because of the onerous daily operating tasks connected with that position. You should continue, how- ever, for the time being as Administrator of the Defense Production Administration until you can determine to what degree, if any, a welding of that small yet vital program- ming organization with the Office of Defense Mobilization will be helpful in giving em- phasis and focus to the remaining phases of rounding out the mobilization base and, in cooperation with the Department of Defense, maintaining the acceleration of production of key military weapons and equipment. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: The text of Mr. Fowler's letter of acceptance, dated September 5, was also released. On December 16, the White House released a letter from the President to Mr. Fowler expressing appreciation for his willingness to remain in the post for several weeks beyond December 31. 246 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Concerning Air Service Between the United States and Mexico. September 8, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 22, 1946, I approved certificates for air services to certain points in Mexico issued to Eastern Air Lines, Braniff Airways, and Western Air Lines. On May 22, 1947, I approved an amendment to the certificate issued to Western Air Lines. No air service has been provided by any of the holders in the six years since the certificates were approved. Since that time, this government has re- peatedly attempted to work out a bilateral agreement with the Government of Mexico to establish a stable pattern of air transporta- tion services between the two countries. The existence of the three outstanding but nonoperative certificates has been a signifi- cant factor in the failure to work out a satis- factory bilateral agreement with the Mexican Government. It is clear that as long as there is no inter-governmental air agreement with Mexico and these inoperative certificates re- main outstanding, a government other than our own will have the sole voice as to which, if and under what condition, any of these services will be initiated and the ability of this government to negotiate a bilateral agreement best adapted to the broad interests of the United States will be restricted. Furthermore, the efforts by this govern- ment to develop a long term pattern of air transportation services between the two coun- 55-672^66- -39 565 [246] Sept. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents tries on a government-togovernment basis have been and may further be prejudiced by private efforts to negotiate on an individual basis without regard for the overall air trans- portation interests of this country and in dis- regard of directions by this government not to engage in such conduct. Because of these and other foreign policy considerations and in order to assure the necessary flexibility of action by this govern- ment in stabilizing and clarifying the air transportation relationship between the United States and Mexico, I take the follow- ing action: 1. I withdraw my approval of the three certificates for air service to Mexico issued to Eastern Air Lines, Braniff Airways, and Western Air Lines, described above. 2. I direct the State Department to take appropriate action, in accordance with the procedures followed in other similar nego- tiations, to institute negotiations with the Government of Mexico with a view toward effecting at an early date a fair and equitable bilateral air transportation agreement pro- viding for a sound pattern of air transporta- tion between the two countries and con- sistent with the best interests of the United States. 3. I direct the Civil Aeronautics Board, upon execution of such a bilateral agree- ment, to take all steps necessary and appro- priate to accomplish at the earliest possible moment the pattern of air transportation contemplated by the bilateral agreement. Will you please officially record the action that I have taken withdrawing my approval, and notify the airlines by immediately send- ing them copies of this letter. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Donald W. Nyrop, Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board] 247 The President's News Conference of September 11, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [ 1.] I have a short statement here, which I will read to you. And Tony,1 for your benefit I will read it very slowly, because it isn't mimeographed. Tony Vaccaro: Oh, thank you, sir. [Laughter] the president. You know, at the Chi- cago convention, I said the Republicans have nearly all the newspapers and magazines on their side. Governor Stevenson, the other day, in Oregon, had something to say on this situa- tion. I agree with what he said, and would like to add just what I mean by Republican control of the press. In 1948, only 10.3 percent of the 1769 daily papers Q. Mr. President, would you mind re- peating that figure again? 1 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. the president. Sure, Tony. Only 10.3 percent of the 1769 daily papers in this coun- try supported the Democratic candidate, and almost all the big circulation magazines were pro-Republican. I don't think the situation has changed much since then. In Michigan in 1948, for instance, not one of the 53 daily papers supported the Demo- cratic ticket. Q. What year was that? the president. 1948. There wasn't a single newspaper in Michigan that supported the Democrats. Q. How many daily — 43 ? the president. 53. 53 daily papers. In New York, only 4 percent of the papers were for the Democrats. In Pennsylvania, 1.5 percent. In Illinois, 3.4 percent. In Ohio, 4 percent. In California, 4.8 percent. Now I will repeat those figures. Q. Yes, please. the president. All right. You got the 566 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 11 [247] one about Michigan, where not one of the 53 daily papers supported the Democratic ticket? In New York only 4 percent were for the Democrats. In Pennsylvania only 1.5 percent. In Illinois only 3.4 percent. In Ohio only 4 percent. Going too fast? Q. Yes, sir — you were. the president. Going too fast — all right. How far have you got? Q. I have 4 percent — up to now. the president. Have you? All right. In California 4.8 percent — that's the last one. The one-party press situation is, of course, particularly tough for Democratic congres- sional candidates, who get even less oppor- tunity to state their case in their local Re- publican papers than does the Democratic presidential candidate. Now, I do not expect that listing these fig- ures will result in any switches from the Republican to the Democratic Party. News- papers— especially daily newspapers — have become big business, and big business tradi- tionally has always been Republican. I suggest that Americans bear this in mind, and add a dash of salt to every Republican helping of news, especially in those many papers and magazines which do not give a fair balance of news between the two major parties. If democracy is to work properly, the peo- ple must be able to read and hear not only the Republican story but the Democratic as well. Our newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV have a great responsibility to be fair in this and in all other campaigns. I want to add a comment to that, that I don't think it makes much difference what they do. I have had some experience with the situation for over 30 years, and as far as I can remember I never had the support of the metropolitan press in Missouri when I was running for the Senate, and I never needed it. In 1948, 1 read you the figures, and I think it is a rather pitiful situation, the small amount of political influence that the great free press of the United States has. It is a good thing for the country, and I am not worried about the situation, .but I am calling these things — nailing this thing down, for the simple reason that I am very anxious to see in the news columns a fair approach to the thing. I will say this, that fairness has been in- creasing since Governor Stevenson's speech. I am ready for questions. Q. Well, Mr. President, the Democrats have been winning for 20 years the president. That's right. Q. and I wonder if your figures don't mean that more readers read the news col- umns than they do the editorials? the president. Oh, yes. I have already said that. I don't give a "hoot" what they say on the editorial pages if they will just give me a fair deal in the news. Q. Well, Mr. President, when you say that you don't give a "hoot" about the edito- rial pages, isn't that what your statement was aimed at, sir? the president. No, it was not. It was principally aimed at garbling the news, and there are papers in this country that do garble the news. There are a lot of first- class newspapers that do not, but there are a great many that do. I could specifically name them if it were necessary, but I won't. And you know who they are as well as I do. [2.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you have any comment on Senator McCarthy's primary victory in Wisconsin? the president. No comment. [3.] Q. Do you have any comment, sir, on Governor Shivers'2 decision to support Eisenhower and Nixon? the president. No comment. When I get out on the road I'll tell you a lot of stories that will be of interest to you. [4.] Q. In that connection, Mr. Presi- dent, could you tell us something about your forthcoming western trip, where it may take you beyond Hungry Horse? the president. Well, it isn't quite ready for an announcement yet, but just as quickly as we get the thing properly lined up, I will 2 Governor Allan Shivers of Texas. 567 [247] Sept. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents see that you get mimeographed copies of the schedule, and you will have to take two or three clean shirts, because it is going to be pretty well stretched out. There won't be time to stop and get any laundry. Q. I have half a dozen thousand-mile shirts. [Laughter] THE PRESIDENT. So have I. Q. Mr. President, can't you tell us whether or not you plan to go to the Southwest, since they have had this trouble down there? the president. The program is being out- lined by the National Democratic Commit- tee, and the President will go where he is requested to go by the committee. Q. Well, Mr. President, it seems that you are going to do about as much campaigning as in 1948, is that about right? the president. No, no, it is not right, be- cause in 1948 I started out on several non- political trips in June, and then I started out on a real political tour on Labor Day, and I didn't stop. Q. I meant the trips after Labor Day, would it be about as extensive the president. I don't know yet, because the thing has not been completely outlined; and as soon as it is, why then you can com- pare them if you like, and I have got the figures on the other trips. Q. Mr. President, can you give us any assurance as to how early you will be getting up in the morning for some of these whistle- stop speeches? [Laughter] the president. Well, I haven't ever put any early-rising time on any of these things. I always get up when it is necessary. I think the earliest time we ever got up was about 6:30, and that wasn't bad. Q. Mr. President, was that really neces- sary ? the president. It carried Colorado, if I remember correctly. [Laughter] [5.] Q. Mr. President, some of these House investigators looking into the Justice Department claim there has been some pres- sure from the White House on Caudle 3 and 3Theron Lamar Caudle, former Assistant Attor- ney General in charge of the Tax Division. others on the tax case. Do you know of any pressure like that? the president. I do not. [6.] Q. Mr. President, there is a report that some high-level British officials are com- ing here next year to discuss all manner of economic matters between the two countries. Do you know about that? the president. No, I haven't been in- formed on that. I suppose they will wait for the new administration, because they know I won't be here next year. Q. Is there some preparation on this side for such talks the president. I know nothing about it. Q. a particular visit the president. 1 know nothing about it. [7.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on General Eisenhower's en- dorsement of Senator Jenner? 4 the president. No comment. [8.] Q. Mr. President, those figures you gave us on newspapers, were they percent- ages of circulation of the newpsapers, or per- centages of the newspapers the president. Newspapers as a whole, 1700-odd of them. Those percentages were based on number of newspapers. When you get to circulation the percentage runs a great deal higher. [9.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisen- hower said yesterday that he knew the tem- per of the troops, so to speak, and knows the temper of the people — had been out for a long time — he thought they were more in- terested in a change than in peace. What do you think about that? the president. I don't think that's true. I think the thing that the country and the world is interested in is peace. That is what we have been aiming for, for 7 long years, and I am still hopeful that we will get it. We won't necessarily get it by the sort of change that they are talking about. [10.] Q. Mr. President, General Eisen- hower spelled out a Republican farm pro- 4 Senator William E. Jenner of Indiana. 568 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 11 [248] gram a few days ago. I wonder what you thought of it? the president. I am glad Ike is perfectly willing to take some of the principal planks in the Democratic platform and try to stand on them. It's a little late, though, for the Republicans to get on that platform. [11.] Q. Mr. President, the Japanese wish to log a large section of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Do you approve of allowing them to form an American company ? the president. Ask that question again, I didn't hear it? Q. The Japanese Government through its embassy here has informed the State Depart- ment and other agencies that it wishes to log a large section in the Tongass National For- est— which is southeastern Alaska largely. The — do you approve of letting them form an American company to do that? the president. I don't know anything about it, so I can't approve or disapprove. It has never been put up to me. [12.] Q. Mr. President, I believe you said you didn't think we would get peace with the change that Eisenhower proposes? the president. That's right. Q. That could be construed that you the president. An isolationist Congress is what he is proposing. That won't bring peace. Q. That could be construed — I mean the president. I didn't say that at all. I said it would not bring peace. Don't mis- interpret what I tell you. Don't try to put words in my mouth, I don't like that. Q. Just to clarify — you said an isolationist Congress is what he is proposing, I don't think that will bring peace. Do you mean by his endorsement of some of the candi- dates ? the president. I mean if we elect a Re- publican Congress it will be isolationist. I am only going by their votes in Congress as a whole, in the minority that they are in now. Q. Mr. President, could we quote "isola- tionist Congress" ? the president. Yes — isolationist Con- gress. Q. Anything we have overlooked, Mr. President? the president. I don't think so. I haven't anything else on my mind. Reporter: Thank you, sir. the president. It's all right. note: President Truman's three hundred and fifteenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 11, 1952. 248 Remarks at a Ceremony Marking the Issuance of the "Women in the Armed Services" Commemorative Stamp. September n, 1952 Mr. Postmaster General : I appreciate very much having the first sheet of these stamps which honor the women in the services. Women in the services are something that has taken place on a great scale in my life- time. In times gone by women weren't al- lowed to vote or hold office or to work in industry except in a menial capacity. In this long struggle for liberation and equality for our mothers and our sisters, and our cousins and our aunts, we have had most violent opposition. I was in the gallery of the United States Senate one time, when I heard a senior United States Senator from Missouri make a most bitter speech against woman suffrage. He wouldn't dare do that today because he couldn't get back there if he did. We had some opposition to women in the services, but we took them in, and no one would throw them out now, I am sure of 569 [248] Sept. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents that. In fact, the services would have a hard time operating without them. There were over 300,000 women in the services in World War II. They filled 239 different types of military jobs and released fighting men for the front. There are nine components in which women serve and have permanent status, by act of Congress signed and approved by the President of the United States. Four hundred and fifty types of jobs in the services are open to women. Some of them require highly complicated training. There are 46,000 women now serving as voluntary officers and enlisted personnel. They are serving in 15 countries. We need many more thousands to meet the military manpower needs. And I hope you will tell everybody you see that there are a lot of good places for good-looking young ladies, and good-looking middle-aged ladies, who can help the welfare of this country now as never before. Now, this place here has some historical significance. This is the place where it is my duty, sometimes, to pin Medals of Honor on men who have earned them at the front — the highest honor that can come to anyone in the military services. And it is the high- est honor that I myself receive, when I hand out those medals. I want to say to you women of the services, that your devotion to duty is right in line with those men who earned those medals. If you had the opportunity, you would earn those medals, too. Sometimes you earn the medals and never get them. But I want to say to you that I think this is a great occasion, and I appreciate it. I appreciate the privilege of being a party to the commemorative stamp which has been ordered to be distributed today. This, I think, will be really an historical event. I want to congratulate the services on the way they are handling the women in the serv- ices. Today, you see the women in the front ranks, and you see the soldiers and the sailors and the marines in the back rank. Now they are always in the front rank, no matter what happens, because there isn't a man alive who doesn't owe something to his mother, or his sister, or his wife. Again I want to say that I am just as happy as I can be to be here, and to help celebrate this occasion. Congratulations to the women in the services. note: The President spoke at 12:05 p.m. on the South Lawn at the White House. His opening words referred to Postmaster General Jesse M. Donaldson. 249 Address in Philadelphia at the American Hospital Association Convention. September 16, 1952 Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen: It is a great pleasure for me to be here today. This meeting gives me an opportu- nity to talk on one of my favorite subjects — the health of the American people. When I stood up here awhile ago and pre- sented this Certificate of Merit to Mr. Mc- Namara, he was under the impression that that was a put-up job, and it was — I was a party to it. And the mayor and myself maneuvered the situation so that the Presi- dent of the United States could get two intro- ductions instead of one. I was standing up here at the singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner," and I noticed in looking around over the audience that everybody kept looking at me, and wonder- ing why in the Sam Hill I wasn't doing a little singing myself. And I will tell you why. I am like Artemus Ward, as a "sing- ist" I'm not a success. I am saddest when I sing, and so are those who listen to me. The singer in the family is now in California. I feel very close to you people who are here today. In fact, I think perhaps I can qualify as a hospital administrator myself, because the Federal Government operates the largest group of hospitals in the country. 570 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 16 [249] You see, I have some of the same headaches that you do. Just some. I know something about the nature of your problems, and I also know about the wonderful work you are doing. I am proud of our Federal hospitals, and I am proud that they are members of the American Hospital Association. All our hospitals — voluntary, municipal, and State, as well as Federal — and all the people who serve in them can take great pride in what they have done to help lift the Nation's stand- ard of health in recent years. We now have the highest standard of health in our history. Life expectancy has never been so high; the occurrence of com- municable diseases has never been so low. Typhoid fever, smallpox, diphtheria, pel- lagra, rickets, and malaria have been vir- tually wiped out. In fact, these diseases are so rare today I am told that many of our younger physicians have never even seen a case. We have overcome the major causes of in- fant mortality, and today only one mother in 1,400 dies at childbirth. From 1944 to 1950, the general death rate in our Nation declined 10 percent. Deaths from tuberculosis were reduced 46 percent; from influenza and pneumonia, 50 percent; from syphilis, 53 percent. Contrary to what some of you may have been led to expect, I do not claim sole credit for these remarkable achievements. I am sometimes accused of claiming credit for everything good that has happened in the United States while I have been President, and, by the same token, I am also accused of never having made a mistake. As for mistakes, I know that I make them like everyone else, and I do admit them from time to time. However, it has not seemed necessary for me to spend a great deal of time calling attention to my mistakes because there have always been plenty of other peo- ple who were willing to do that for me. You hospital administrators know what I mean because you have to serve as the whip- ping boys for a lot of other people, too. Actually, our magnificent achievements in the field of health have resulted primarily from teamwork. We could not have made this record unless everyone had done his part — doctors, nurses, and hospital adminis- trators, and all the other workers who are devoted to keeping people well. We all have our places on the team, and none of us could do the job without the help of all the others. One of the best illustrations of what can be accomplished through teamwork is what has happened in our medical program for vet- erans. At the end of World War II, we set out on a program to revitalize the medical services of the Veterans Administration and to make sure that men and women who had been dis- abled in the defense of our country would re- ceive medical care second to none. That program has been successful beyond what everyone thought would be possible. This success has been made possible by the wholehearted cooperation of the private practitioners, professional schools, and hos- pitals. The Veterans Administration has secured the part-time services of over 100,- 000 experts in the medical field to aid its full- time staff. And the faculties of nearly every leading medical school in the country are now working with the Veterans Administra- tion to provide an ever-higher quality of medical care. I am delighted it's that way. This un- excelled medical care for our veterans shows how the Government and the American medical profession can work together for the benefit of everyone. While we have been making these ad- vances in veterans' medicine, we have made equally impressive gains in national defense medicine — in caring for the men and women in the armed services. In the fighting in Korea, the mortality rate among the wounded who reach medical aid is only half the rate of World War II — and that was remarkably low. Eighty-five per- cent of the wounded are now returned to active duty. The most amazing thing is 571 [249] Sept. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents that this wonderful record is being made with one-half the number of physicians per 1,000 troops that were used in World War II. We have been able to do this only because there has been the closest kind of coordina- tion among our three medical services and civilian health agencies. And while we are speaking of teamwork, I want to pay tribute here to the contribution that you, and the medical profession, and the Red Cross, and the American people, have made to the national blood program. It has been a magnificent achievement. But let us remember, however, that we dare not relax our efforts. The supply of blood needed for our troops in Korea, for the patients in your hospitals here at home, and for civil defense reserves is dangerously low. I appeal again to every American to give blood if he can. Now, all these evidences of collaboration between the health profession and the Gov- ernment may come as a surprise to you. I am sure they will be a surprise to most people in view of all that has been said about the terrible things I have been trying to do to the medical profession. The fact is that the medical profession has more to do with determining the policies of the Federal Government today than ever before in history with regard to health. All the groups concerned with health have come together in the Health Resources Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Howard Rusk, to give their help and advice to the Government. The president-elect of the American Hospital Association is a mem- ber of this Committee, and a high official of the American Medical Association serves as vice chairman. The Committee is doing a marvelous job. And I am paying tribute to them. All this doesn't mean that there is nothing left to argue about. I expect we will go right on in the American way having differ- ences of opinion about the part the Fed- eral Government should play in helping to meet the health needs of our citizens. Now, personally, I have always understood that the Constitution of the United States imposes upon the Government of the United States a responsibility with respect to the general welfare of its citizens. And certainly no one can pretend that good health is not a matter of first importance so far as the general wel- fare is concerned. That is why, ever since I have been Presi- dent, I have recommended programs which I believe will provide better medical and health services for all our people. Some groups have received these proposals en- thusiastically. Others have been strongly against them. That is what happens every time we try to move forward. We have to make each advance by overcoming the objec- tions of those who want to pull back. My only interest in this matter is better health for all our people. That is why I have constantly asked the "pullbacks" to come forward with plans of their own. But you know, it is a failing common to the "pullbacks" — they don't want to move ahead at all, no matter how it's done. They just want to stand still, with things as they are, or they even want to move backward. Even now they seem to be advocating the amazing proposition that Government should have nothing to do with health ex- cept for "locally administered indigent medi- cal care programs." That's about like saying we don't need any form of social security except the county poorhouse. These people really want to go back to horse and buggy days. I am here to tell you we are just not going back to horse and buggy days. We can't, if we wanted to. Fortunately, we have gone ahead in this country, despite the "pullbacks," to accom- plish what we could over their opposition. Now I will tell you a story right here that is most interesting. I have collected since I have been in the White House a great many stories about the improvement of that struc- ture and about the various Presidents and First Ladies who have been in it. There is a story around the White House 572 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 16 [249] that Mrs. Millard Fillmore brought the first bathtub into the White House. There is also a story in connection with it, that the local medical association in Cincinnati, Ohio, passed a resolution calling Mrs. Fillmore an indecent person because she had put the bathtub in the White House. This medical association in Cincinnati said that it was un- sanitary, that it was unhealthy, that no per- son should take all his clothes off at one time. Well, my friends, there has been some progress since that date, and I want to say to you that there are more bathtubs in the White House now than there are in the Benjamin Franklin Hotel. As a matter of fact, we have accomplished a great deal, as this story I have just told you illustrates. We established in 1946 a Federal aid pro- gram for the construction of hospitals to be owned and operated by the people in local communities. As a result, thousands upon thousands are getting hospital care who never had it before, especially in the rural areas. By now more than 1,800 projects for hospi- tals, health centers, and other medical facil- ities have been approved. Already, this pro- gram has added 88,000 beds and about 350 health centers to the Nation's health re- sources. One of the best things about this program is that more than one-half of these facilities are in towns which never had hospitals be- fore. This is going to help correct the prob- lem of the proper distribution of doctors. More young physicians will set up their prac- tices in the country if they have modern hos- pitals in which they can work. This hospital survey and construction pro- gram is an example of a happy and success- ful partnership between the Federal Govern- ment, the State Governments — governments of the local communities. The States take responsibility for orderly planning to meet hospital needs. Local citizens take respon- sibility for raising about two-thirds of the funds and for operating their hospitals. This is the kind of teamwork by which we were able to meet the needs of 18 million Americans — one in eight of our population — who required hospital care last year. It is an achievement in which Americans can take real pride. Now I want to remind you that behind all the work in our hospitals, behind all the advances in health, and behind all the health profession can do for the sick, is the under- lying force of medical research. The key to all past accomplishments has been in painstaking research brought to the point of practical application. This will be just as true in the future as it has been in the past. We must remember that we advance from one set of problems to another. Past achieve- ments in medicine have advanced us to the problems of the chronic and degenerative diseases. Having extended the life span, we are now grappling with heart disease, can- cer, and other disabilities that people suffer in later life. These problems are more difficult to re- solve than were their predecessors. This means that the research required for their solution is constantly growing more complex and more expensive. It means that the whole structure of medical research must be strengthened. We need more research effort and more research workers. The American people have given splendid support to medical research through private organizations, and I know they will keep it up. But we have found that the cost of research is so great that we cannot expect it to be met solely through private means. Right now the Federal Government is sup- porting by research grants about a quarter of all the research done in medical schools. The Government is giving this aid without any control at all over the scientists or schools. That is the way it should be done and that is the way it must be done. One of the most exciting developments in the history of medical research has been the use of the radioisotopes made available by the Atomic Energy Commission. Our sci- entists tell me that the radioisotope, when used as a tracer, represents the most impor- 5&-6I7J2— 66- -40 573 [249] Sept. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents tant tool for unraveling the life process since the invention of the microscope in the 17th century. Our atomic apothecary in Oak Ridge has made about 27,000 shipments of radioactive isotopes to 922 institutions in the United States. Many of you are now using these materials for the diagnosis of patients with thyroid disease, heart disease, and cancer. Now it took billions of dollars to produce these new aids to medicine — billions of dol- lars. No one except the Government could have marshalled the resources to do the job. One of the research projects of the Gov- ernment in which I take a great deal of per- sonal pride is the new Clinical Center of the Public Health Service in Bethesda, Mary- land. A little more than a year ago, I spoke at the cornerstone ceremonies for this unique hospital-laboratory. We were pleased to have the trustees of the American Hospital Association present on that occasion. In that grent structure, soon to be completed, the Public Health Service will combine a range of clinical and scientific skills never before brought together under one roof. This will make it possible to step up our attack on cancer, heart disease, the viruses, mental illness, arthritis, and neurological disorders. I honestly believe that our present day efforts in medical research are leading us into a new Golden Age of Medicine. We should never forget that the best pos- sible of all ways for treating disease and disability is by preventing them from hap- pening. That is why research and preven- tive medicine and accident prevention are so important. Just think of all the human suffering that has been prevented and all the money that has been saved by our victories over com- municable diseases. Take smallpox, for example. In 1921, we had more than 100,000 cases in this country. Last year, only 11 cases were reported in the entire Nation. Good health is not only a matter of wiping out disease; it is a matter of reducing our frightful accident toll. Thousands of men, women, and children are being maimed in accidents each month that we could prevent if we had the foresight to do so. Better safety education, more research into safety devices, plus better enforcement of safety regulations, would save us millions of heart- aches and hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We could prevent the loss to our productive economy of literally thousands and thousands of people who are now victims of disabling accidents. And we could re- habilitate and return to productive life un- told numbers of others at a cost far less than it now takes to care for them. So, although we have come a long way toward our goal of good health for every American, we still have a long way to go. We have to move ahead with a balanced program that takes account of facts as they are. You can't take care of sick people just by putting them in a building. The building is a shell and doesn't become a hospital until it is equipped and staffed. You can't make the best modern medicine available to every- body— as it should be — unless there is some way for the people to pay for it. The overriding fact is that many phases of modern medical and health care are very expensive. It's not like it was a hundred years ago. Let me read you this little item I found in a magazine last week. This is from the rules and regulations of the Great Falls, New Hampshire, Medical Association, 1847: "The members of this Association shall charge for their professional services the fees in the following table: "For a visit in the village and ordinary medicine, fifty cents. For a visit in the Night, one dollar. For advice in ordinary cases, at the office, twenty-five cents. For extracting a tooth, twenty-five cents. If more than one tooth is extracted for the same patient, at one sitting, each additional tooth shall be 12% cents." If you had two taken out, you could get them for 37V2 cents. 574 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 16 [249] Now this is pretty good: "For obstetrics, a single birth, four dollars. For obstetrics, twins, six dollars." There's no price on triplets, but I guess it would be in the same proportion. "For excision of tonsils, three dollars." Now it was cheaper to have your tonsils out than it was to have a baby in those days. But what I am getting at is that things are different now. The fact that the best medical care costs so much today is not anyone's fault. It is simply because we have found out how to do so much for people who are ill that, if we do all of it, it takes a lot of time and requires a lot of equipment and personnel and many expensive drugs. And it requires training of physicists, of scientists, and doctors of medicine. Nobody is to blame, but these costs have to be met somehow if we want to reap the blessings of medical research in the relief of human suffering. Our problem is to bring medical and health services to people at a price they can afford to pay. I have invited the cooperation of the medical profession in solving this problem. But it is not a job for the medical profession alone. It is a job for all of us. We are now partially solving this problem for many people through voluntary medical and hospital plans. But for many, many more of our citizens the problem is not solved. Many tenant farmers and low-in- come workers and older people do not have the money to obtain health services to an ex- tent even remotely approximating their needs. Over all the land, there are examples such as these. And I say to you, "What shall we do about it?" This great free enterprise system of ours has made it possible for more Americans to have more things — more of the good things of life — than any people any- where on earth, or anywhere in the history of the world. Can it now also make it pos- sible for every American to protect his health? I would not call such a goal "so- cialism." I would call it a goal of enter- prise— American free enterprise. Meeting the health needs of our people is one of the most important ways we can make our American promises come true. It also is one of the mainstays of national de- fense. Only the strong can survive and only the healthy can be strong. This is why, last December, I appointed a Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. I asked this group of prominent professional leaders and lay citizens to sur- vey the situation and then make positive recommendations for action that would bring our people better health. That Commission now has been hard at work for 6 months. It is gathering a lot of highly important facts. It is going to the grassroots of our health problems. It has been holding regular meetings throughout the country and find- ing out what the health needs of our people are, and to what extent they are being supplied. I have not in any way sought to control the work of this Commission. I do not know what it will recommend. But I have great confidence in its members, and I am sure that the report it will file in December will help us move forward toward the thing we all want — better health for everyone in the country. Before we can conquer any obstacle, we must have the will to conquer it. I have a profound faith that the people of this great Nation who have willed so many miracles in modern times also have an inflexible resolve to conquer our everlasting mortal enemies — disease and untimely death. We have made great progress toward that goal. We are making progress now. I hope that in the years ahead we can all march along side by side to take full advantage of our opportunities to make a better and healthier United States of America. note: The President spoke at 1:43 p.m. at Conven- tion Hall in Philadelphia. During his remarks he referred to Fred A. McNamara, Chief, Hospital Branch, Bureau of the Budget, and Mayor Joseph S. Clark, Jr., of Philadelphia. For the President's statement on the report re- leased in December, see Item 352. 575 [250] Sept. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents 250 Remarks to the Delegates to the Theater Owners Convention. September 17, 1952 IT IS a pleasure to have you here this morn- ing. I hope you are having a pleasant visit here in the Capital City, and that you will find out everything you want to know about it. This rose garden here is quite a place for gatherings of this sort. I have received peo- ple here from every section of the United States. I have awarded Congressional Med- als of Honor here in this rose garden. In fact, I pinned a medal on General Mont- gomery here in this rose garden once, and gave the Congressional Medal of Honor to General Wainwright — and have given Gen- eral Marshall and General Eisenhower all medals out here in this garden. I had an interesting experience with Gen- eral Montgomery. He asked me why they called it the White House, and I told him that in 1814 the British burned it down and smoked it all up and we had to paint it to cover up the smoke marks. He asked me why we didn't send the British a bill for it, and I said I didn't think that would be of any use because we would have to lend them the money anyway. That ended the con- versation. But there have been some pleasant ex- periences in this garden, and this morning is certainly one of those experiences. I hope you will enjoy yourselves while you are here in Washington, and that you will go home with a good idea of your Government. We do a lot of work here in this city that people don't understand. They take it for granted that the President lives in a plush house and that he just spends his day enjoy- ing himself, meeting people such as you, and that he doesn't have anything to do. My day starts at 6 o'clock in the morning and ends at 11 o'clock at night. I work 17 hours a day, every day in the year. And when I happen to be away from the White House for a day, like yesterday when I went to Philadelphia for that hospital meeting, it sometimes takes me a week to catch up with things that pile up on the desk. But it's no playboy's business. Unless you want to work, why you have got no business hunting for a job in the White House. Any man that would stand around and watch the President work would be rather foolish to want the job, I'll say that. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 10 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. 251 Address Before the National Conference on Citizenship. September 17, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Attorney General, Mrs. Caldwell, ladies and gentlemen: I am very happy to join in this celebration of Citizenship Day. This is the day on which we celebrate both the signing of the Constitution and what it means to be a citi- zen of the United States of America. It was just this year that the Congress adopted legislation establishing Citizenship Day. This is the first time that we have observed it. I hope the ceremonies and the activities here today will launch an annual celebration that will increase in meaning and influence among our people as the years go by. It pleases me very much to see here this group of men and women who will be ad- mitted to United States citizenship this morning. I welcome them to the fellowship of the citizens who live under our flag; and I want to say something to them about the step they are going to take here today. We are glad that you are about to join us. Millions of men and women before you, from 576 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 17 [251] all parts of the world, have taken the same path to become citizens of this great Republic. Here you will be fellow citizens with peo- ple from other lands, some of them from countries which may have been hostile to your old homelands. But we expect our citizens to put aside those old nationalistic or racial feuds. They have no place here. We welcome you not to a narrow nationalism but to a great community based on universal ideals. Those universal ideals are the broth- erhood of man and the welfare not only of our own country but the whole world besides. We believe that all men have the same rights, and that these rights must be re- spected. We ask you to join with us in working to put into effect our basic ideals of tolerance, friendship, and equality. We ask you to help us defend this country against its enemies, and to join in our efforts to create a new day for the world — a day when there shall be real peace — peace based on the ideals of justice and human brotherhood. For 7 long years I have spent my time and every effort of which I am capable to attain peace in the world, and while my term of office will end on the 20th day of January, I shall never cease to work for peace in the world — a real peace. These are the ideals to which this Nation of immigrants dedicated itself 165 years ago when our Constitution was signed. These are the ideals which we are still striving — imperfectly at times, but with increasing success — to carry out in this wonderful country of ours. This National Conference on Citizenship has always taken a deep interest in the prob- lems of those immigrants in America. To- day, it is more important than ever to con- tinue that interest. Our present laws on immigration and naturalization are not, in my opinion, good enough. In some respects they are unfair; in others, inadequate to meet the problems our country faces today. I recendy appointed a Presidential Com- mission on Immigration and Naturalization to make a study of our laws and national policies on this subject. I hope that you who are delegates to this Conference, and the organizations you represent, will do all you can to help the Commission in the im- portant work it is undertaking. These new citizens we are welcoming here today will have great responsibilities, as well as great opportunities, in this country. Whenever you have opportunities, you al- ways have responsibilities. Under our Constitution, the Government of the United States belongs to all the peo- ple, and they govern this Nation through their elected representatives. Our national programs and policies are formed by the use of our freedoms — by the competition of ideas and proposals that originate in labor unions, on the farm and in business groups, local governments, clubs and community organi- zations, and in the minds of individual citi- zens. The success of free government de- pends upon the willingness of the citizen to participate in it, to contribute to it, and to sacrifice for it. Today, free government is under attack, all around the world. That fact should call forth our greatest loyalties. Free govern- ment needs our support. We cannot keep it unless we are willing to fight for it. The great enemy of free government to- day is Soviet communism. The doctrines of communism are a slow poison that bit by bit eat away the moral fiber of the victim, and destroy the human soul. Communism is the enemy of free government because it de- stroys morality, which is the basis of freedom. These immoral doctrines of communism now have the people of many nations in their grip. The leaders of Communist im- perialism have marshalled men and resources in a great contest against free government. We must win that contest because we want to remain free. We never want the people of the United States to live as the people of the Soviet Union live today. In the Soviet Union, all the decisions are made by a small group of men at the top, 577 [251] Sept. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents and the people are told what they can think, where they can work, how they shall live. If they do not do as they are told, they are hustled off by the secret police to terrible concentration camps, where their life is slowly taken away by a system of forced labor. We are not going to let those things hap- pen here. That is why we have joined with other free nations to build up strong defenses. That is why we are defending ourselves against aggression in Korea. This means that many young Americans are having to serve in our Armed Forces, and some of them are giving their lives. It means that our Nation is having to spend a great deal of money. But we shall continue our resistance to aggression because we know that is one of the things that must be done to protect our liberty. The greatest danger of communism comes from the outside, in the shape of threats of force, aggression, and war. But communism never gives up its efforts to weaken other na- tions from within. It seeks to use all the weapons of propaganda — to stir up and con- fuse the people; and it also seeks to place its hidden agents in positions of trust and power. In this country we have been waging a relentless fight against this internal attack of communism. And as a result, communism inside this country has been badly beaten. The danger that communism might gain political power here through the ballot box no longer exists. The high point of the Communist Party in American politics was in 1932, when people were so miserable they would listen to any quack who promised a way out of the depression. In the presi- dential election of 1932 the Communist Party polled over 100,000 votes. Today its membership is less than 25,000 in a possible voting population of over 90 millions. The chief reason the Communist Party has been losing strength in this country is because our democratic society has been suc- cessful in meeting the needs of our people. Every step we have taken to make living 578 conditions better, to protect individual rights and human dignity, has been a setback for communism. By attacking hunger, poverty, and disease, we have been doing away with the conditions on which communism grows. Moreover, we have been vigilant against subversion. The leaders of the Communist Party have been prosecuted by the Govern- ment in the courts. The top leadership has been jailed. Lesser leaders are now on trial, and some have already been convicted. Communism has not only been beaten as a political force; it has been driven out of trade unions, and other organizations. Our union members deserve a lot of credit for the way they have driven out and isolated the hand- ful of Communists in the labor movement. In the Government service, our loyalty pro- gram stands as a firm barrier to Communist infiltration. The FBI is continually on the alert to track down and frustrate the Com- munist spy. In all these ways, we are making our coun- try safe against the internal threat of com- munism. When we talk about the internal threat of communism, it is important to understand clearly what we mean. The Communist conspiracy is a definite and disciplined group of people who are fanatically dedicated to carrying out the purposes of the Soviet Union. These people can be identified, isolated, and prosecuted in many cases, and rendered harmless. But this group does not include everybody we disagree with. We are not engaged in an effort to stamp out differences of opin- ion, but to root out a conspiracy. People who confuse innocent persons with Communists are not helping to make our Nation secure. They are simply creating a smokescreen be- hind which the real conspirators can find refuge. They are simply muddying the wa- ters and making the real Communists harder to detect. The groups and organizations represented here can do a great deal to put a stop to this sort of confusion. It is your job to make the ideals and principles of Americanism Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 17 [251] clear to our citizens, particularly to the young people. The success of our institutions depends on a clear understanding of what our democ- racy is, what its foundations are, where it is strong and where it is weak. Free govern- ment is based not only on morality, it is also based on reason. Among the greatest dangers to free gov- ernment in this country are lack of knowl- edge, lack of civic responsibility — ignorance and apathy and perversion of the truth. I would like to talk about a few of these in- ternal dangers to free government. The first of them is ignorance of our in- stitutions. I know that many of you here are educators and teachers, and that you are working night and day to explain to our young people what our Government stands for and how it works. And yet it is surpris- ing, in spite of all these efforts, how much ignorance there is. Thirty-five percent of our people who voted in 1948 did not know that each State has two Senators. One public opinion poll showed that 50 percent of the people do not even know who their own Congressman is. What price fame? A survey in one of our great cities in 1950 showed that 75 percent of the people did not know the name of any congressional candidate on any ticket. This is the kind of ignorance we must stamp out if our way of life is to be secure. Another great danger we face is apathy or indifference. The extent to which our citizens ignore the right to vote is appalling. In 1950, just 2 years ago, only 44 percent of our eligible voters went to the polls. Think of that. Less than half of our eligible citi- zens exercised one of the most treasured rights on earth. We must not be complacent about this. Most other democratic nations do far better than we do in this line. The percentage of voters is higher in England, in France, and in dozens of other countries that I could name. I hope we do much better in this election year. Americans should realize that their welfare, and the future welfare of this coun- try, depend on the President they elect and the kind of men that they send to Congress. Of course, it is not enough just to go to the polls and vote. They do that in the Com- munist countries — in fact, they have to do it or go to jail. The point of voting is to exer- cise an intelligent choice. This means that every citizen must try to inform himself on the great problems of the day, to get the facts and debate them. Similarly, it is the duty of our political parties and our candidates to go before the people with the facts. Now, there are various ways of doing this, and some of these are more dramatic and interesting than others. But in a democracy, everyone engaged in politics has a duty — a moral duty — to try to keep public debate rea- sonable and based on a fair discussion of the issues. That brings me to another danger which threatens our democracy from within, and that is the "big lie." The "big lie" is a weapon of political warfare which was de- veloped by the Communists and perfected by Hitler, and is now being used on a world- wide scale by the Soviet Union. The technique of the "big lie" consists of two things. It consists first of making a charge against one's opponents which is frightening and horrible and so extreme that nobody could believe that a decent person would make it if it were not true. Hitler explained this very clearly. He said that if a lie is bold enough people will think there is some truth in it because it would never occur to them, in their own experience, to lie on such an exaggerated scale. The second part of the "big lie" technique is to keep repeating the lie over and over again, ignoring all proof to the contrary. The "big lie" technique is immoral and subversive. It is not a weapon which demo- cratic society can afford to use. It violates the rules of the political game which underlie our constitutional form of government. It violates them in just the same way that riot and revolution violate them. 579 [251] Sept. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents We have no place for this sort of thing in America. If we permit its use, our consti- tutional form of government can be de- stroyed. It is a tool used by Hider and Stalin, and it is just as un-American as they are. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in this country today to resort to the use of the "big lie" in order to reap personal and partisan advantage. It is a "big lie," for ex- ample, to say that we tolerate Communists and other disloyal persons in our Govern- ment. It is a "big lie" to attack one of the greatest generals and patriots whom this country ever had and call him a traitor. A man who uses the weapon of the "big lie" is not a good man. He should be re- jected by all good citizens, regardless of party. Partisan feeling often runs high in election campaigns. That is understand- able. But it should not lead us to permit the use of this dangerous Communist tech- nique in American politics. These are some of the dangers that threat- en our Government from within today. I am sure that we will overcome them. I am sure that the work of this Conference will help overcome them, and will lead to a bet- ter understanding and a wider exercise of the precious rights of American citizenship. I hope you will have a splendid meeting here in Washington, and I know that the good you do here will radiate out through all the organizations represented in this Con- ference from all parts of this great country of ours. I appreciate very highly what you are doing, and I hope that you will carry on your splendid work, not only this year, but every year in the future, and every day, from day to day, as we go along. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 10:45 a-m» at tne Hotel Statler in Washington. In his opening words he referred to Justin Miller, Chairman of the Conference, James P. McGranery, the Attorney Gen- eral, and Mrs. Sarah G. Caldwell, president of the National Education Association. The seventh National Conference on Citizenship was held in Washington, September 17-19, under the auspices of the National Education Association and the Department of Justice. 252 Remarks at the Signing of the Pakistan Wheat Loan Documents. September 17, 1952 MR. AMBASSADOR, I am very happy that this ceremony has taken place today, because it is our theory always that wherever it is possible, we don't want to see any people go hungry. We have been watching the situation in your country ever since we heard that your crops were short over there, and the arrange- ment of this loan and the signing of these documents makes us just as happy as I am sure it will make those people happy who would otherwise have gone hungry. It is a pleasure to do that in this case. note: The President spoke at 3:27 p.m. in his office at the White House. His Excellency Mohammed AH, Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, responded as follows: "On behalf of the Government and the people of Pakistan, I thank Your Excellency's Government for this offer of help and assistance to my people. "I think this is a practical and actual demonstra- tion of the sincere desire on the part of the Ameri- can Government and people to help the development of countries and people who are in need of assistance, and on behalf of my Government and people, sir, I thank you and your Government." On the same day the White House announced that the $15 million loan to Pakistan for the purchase of wheat was being made by the Export-Import Bank, using funds made available under the author- ity of the Mutual Security Act of 1951, as amended. The release also stated that the shortage was a result of a severe drought in the winter of 1951-52 in western Pakistan, the country's wheat producing area. 580 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 18 [253] 253 The President's News Conference of September 18, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I want to call your attention, first, to a booklet that has been gotten out by the State Department on forced labor in the Soviet Union.1 It is available and most — it's most interesting. [Reading] "I know most of you are probably aware that the United Nations has been investigating the practice of forced labor. The United States has been most anxious that the facts be made known. I therefore want to call your attention today to this factual expose of forced labor in the Soviet Union and its satellites which was compiled by the Department of State. It contains many vivid examples of what it means to live under the present Soviet rulers, and indicates the scope of this practice in the Russian sphere and its economic and political significance. "With the urging and support of labor organizations, particularly American labor and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, the United States and Great Britain requested the United Nations to in- vestigate forced labor wherever it exists in the world. As a result, the United Nations created a special committee headed by an outstanding Indian leader." I can't pronounce his name, so you will have to read it — Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar. [Continuing reading] "This committee held hearings in New York in lune and will continue its investigation in Geneva begin- ning October 14. The United States Gov- ernment made available to the United Na- tions committee such evidence as it had of forced labor in the Soviet sphere. The State Department has summarized all these facts in this booklet" — which is most interesting reading. And it's written in language that is easy to read. It hasn't very many State Department 1 "Forced Labor in the Soviet Union," Depart- ment of State publication 4716 (Government Print- ing Office, 1952, 69 pp.). words in it, so you will have a good time reading it. [Laughter] Mr. Perimeter.2 Mr. President, we have copies for them. the president. Irv tells me that there are copies available at the door when you go out. 1 am ready for questions. [2.] Q. Mr. President, I am sure you are anticipating a question on this one. General Eisenhower said that during 1946 he was in Georgia and he was directed to return to Washington to assume command of the rail- way strikers just as they were to be drafted, and he refused with a bitter protest? the president. I know no such conversa- tion took place. And the Chief of Staff would never refuse an order from the Com- mander in Chief, I know that, if he had one — which he did not, in this case. Q. No such conversation took place? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. I wonder if we might have that read back? the president. No such conversation took place, and I know that the Chief of Staff of the United States Army would not tell the Commander in Chief that he would not obey an order. That just isn't done. Roger8 informs me that somebody else might have had a conversation. I am talk- ing from my own knowledge. No conversa- tion took place so far as I am concerned. Never thought of any such conversation, be- cause the strike was settled before it was necessary to do anything. Q. Mr. President, in line with the same story, papers carried word that informed sources at Eisenhower headquarters said that he had informed you he would resign as Chief of Staff and his Army commission rather than act as a strikebreaker. the president. I am sorry that the in- formed sources are grossly misinformed. [Laughter] 2 Irving Perimeter, Assistant Press Secretary. 8 Roger Tubby, Assistant Press Secretary. 581 [253] Sept. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. That never happened, in other words? the president. Of course it didn't. [3.] Q. Mr. President, did Governor Stevenson ask you to make this long whistle- stop tour? the president. Yes. The national com- mittee did, which represents Governor Stevenson. He is in agreement with it, I can assure you of that. Q. You are still in the ranks? THE PRESIDENT. How's that? Q. You are still in the ranks ? the president. Oh, yes. I expect to stay there until the thing is over. [4.] Q. Mr. President, you said Mr. Tubby had said that such a conversation might have taken place with someone else. Did it, to your knowledge ? the president. No. Not that I know of. I know nothing about any such conversa- tion. It has just come out of the free air just lately. It's a political proposition entirely. Q. Mr. President, I got sort of lost when we jumped to another subject. Could Mr. Romagna 4 read back to us one or two sen- tences— that last part of your comment, just before the question about the whistlestop? the president. Yes, go ahead. Q. I would like to be accurate. the president. Do you know what the question was ? Q. It was your last sentence of that part of your comment on the Eisenhower matter. the president. All right, read it. [The White House Official Reporter read the sentence. The President then resumed speaking.] I think I said that the strike was settled before the message to the Congress was com- pleted; it was setded while I was reading the message. [5.] Q. Mr. President, in 1948, 1 believe, after you whisdestopped through upstate New York, you told Mr. Walter White of the NAACP that you were sure that you were going to win the election. I notice that you are going to whistlestop through upstate New York again this year. Do you think that will give you the same idea of the trend of the way the election is going? the president. I can answer the question better, after the trip. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, last time, in 1948, I think Mr. Biffle 5 was going around the country disguised as a chicken farmer, and reporting to you. Do you have any such agent the president. I am not a candidate this time. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, Republicans say that South Carolina is going presidentially Republican. How much of a majority do you think Ike will get down there? the president. What was the question? Q. Republicans say South Carolina will go Republican in the presidential election this year. How much majority do you think Ike will get down there? the president. I am not an authority on Republican majorities, so I can't tell you. [Laughter] [7.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan, ever, to make public the report to you last Febru- ary on the subject of psychological strategy by Gordon Gray? the president. No, I do not. The parts of it that can be made public have been made public, I am sure. I do not intend to re- lease the report. [8.] Q. Mr. President, now that your favorite Republican candidate, Senator Taft, seems to have gotten into the act, would you care to comment on the Republican cam- paign as it stands now, with both Eisen- hower and Taft working together? the president. I would refer you to the statement of the candidate for President, Governor Stevenson. I think he answered it completely. Q. Are you referring to the statement, sir, in which he said that General Eisenhower had surrendered to Senator Taft? the president. That's the one. 4 Jack Romagna, White House Official Reporter. 582 s Leslie L. Biffle, Secretary of the Senate. Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 18 [253] Q. Mr. President, do you think Mr. Lausche is going to be able to beat Mr. Taft in Ohio? the president. I don't know anything about Ohio politics, and I can't answer the question. The best thing for you to do is to go out there and talk to Lausche.6 [9.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to see Governor Stevenson before you go West? the president. If he wants to see me, of course I will be glad to see him, but he is a very busy man. I don't know whether he will have time to see me this time or not, but I will be glad to see him. Q. I notice he is in Springfield the 28th, and you will be going into Chicago the 28th the president. No special arrangements have been made. We may accidentally run into each other. If he wants to see me, I will be glad to see him; and if I want to see him, he will be glad to see me. [Laughter] We are in perfect agreement. [10.] Q. Mr. President, when Mr. Thomas Fairchild of Wisconsin called on you yesterday, was he able to convince you that he might beat Senator McCarthy? the president. He impressed me as being a very able and decent citizen, and one that any Democrat can endorse for the United States Senate; and I hope he wins. [11.] Q. Mr. President, do you know of any plans for you to speak on the same plat- form as Governor Stevenson during the cam- paign the president. No, I don't. Q. Mr. President, more to the point, you won't be back from New London in time to meet Governor Stevenson when he comes through here Saturday? the president. I don't know what time he is coming through. I can't answer the ques- tion. Ask Governor Stevenson about his plans. I didn't make them. I make my own 8 Governor Frank J. Lausche of Ohio, Democratic candidate for reelection, defeated Republican candi- date Charles P. Taft, brother of Senator Robert A. Taft, in the election held on November 4. Q. I didn't know whether you would be back in town, that was the point. the president. I will be back in town just as fast as the plane can bring me, after we have lunch up there. It ought to be around 3 o'clock, I judge. [12.] Q. Mr. President, I wonder if you have any comment on some Republican criticism of Governor Stevenson's witticisms in some of his speeches ? the president. Governor Stevenson's speeches impressed me as being excellent, and if the Republicans don't like these humorous jibes at themselves, I am sorry that their hide is so tender. [Laughter] [13.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Taft said in his speech yesterday in Springfield, Ohio, that only the Congress of the United States saved this country from going so- cialistic. Would you agree with that evaluation? the president. I would not. I will an- swer that on a whistlestop one of these days, and tell you what kind of socialism we've got. It's pretty good. [14.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment now on how the Democratic cam- paign is being handled? the president. The Democratic cam- paign is being handled in good shape. If you will read all the screams in the Repub- lican press, that's enough to convince you. [15.] Q. Mr. President, on your western tour, do you plan to take along your own confetti and campaign balloons? the president. I never have had to do that. I don't think I'll start at this late date. [Laughter] In fact, I would just as soon do without the confetti and the bal- loons. It gets in your hair. Q. How many whistlestop speeches do you think you will make this time, Mr. President? the president. I don't know. I haven't the slightest idea. I will just go where I'm told, and stop where I'm told. Q. I notice that the itinerary as given out is just about as long as any of the train trips up to now, and I remember one similar trip 583 [253] Sept. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents where you made 64 speeches. the president. Well, let us say we made maybe the same speech 64 times; but it ac- complished the purpose. [Laughter] I will stop wherever they want me to, and do the best I can. And to tell you the honest truth, I always enjoy it. I had a good time coming across West Virginia the other day. Reporter. We enjoyed it, too. you, sir. the president. It's all right. Thank note: President Truman's three hundred and sixteenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, September 18, 1952. 254 Statement by the President on the Death of Joseph Short. September 18, 1952 JOE SHORT's death is as shocking to me as if he had been a member of my own family. For he was more than a trusted and valued assistant. I know how unsparing of his health he was in his service to me and to his country. Despite every urging that he rest, he labored day and night for uncompromis- ing principles. He was a tireless advocate of justice and decency, and an unflagging fighter for progressive programs to make his country stronger and sounder. In his personal relationships, he was a devoted husband and father and held the respect and friendship of all who knew him. Here was a public servant to inspire others, a rare model which cannot be replaced. To the millions of Americans to whom Joe Short was only a name, I say all of us have lost grievously. Joe Short was my loyal friend. note: Mr. Short served dent from December 18, 18, 1952. as Secretary to the Presi- 1950, through September 255 Remarks in New London at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. September 20, 1952 Mr. Commandant of the cadets in the review this morning, and my host here: I appreciate most highly this etching of the ship which I am to inspect shortly. The men at this table have offered to make a deal with me, to trade it for the Williamsburg. I want to say to you, however, don't be fooled by that offer, for the simple reason that the Williamsburg can pitch higher and roll further than I think your sailing ship can. I will try to find out — and I will, I hope, find out before the day is over, if the Navy can still run a sailing ship. I am not sure about that. I have got my aide looking it up. I have wanted to pay you a visit for some time. The Secretary of the Treasury and I were field artillery captains in the First World War. You know, that has been a long time ago. None of you was on earth - at that time. And as a Secretary in the Cabinet, he has control of the Coast Guard, and he has been trying for more than a year to have me, as President of the United States, pay you a visit. I am most happy to be here. I have had a very pleasant day, and I expect to have more pleasure as the day goes on. This organization is a great organization. It had the first armed sea force under the Government of the United States, after it was organized in 1789. I think the Coast Guard started in 1790, if I am not mistaken, and I understand that that armed Coast Guard organization was made up of cut- ters— it was sometimes called the "cutter service," so they tell me. It was organized by Alexander Hamilton, and when he or- dered these cutters, he said that he wanted 584 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 20 [255] the very best that could possibly be obtained, and he was willing to pay as much as $1,500 apiece for them. Now I was just thinking about one of the ships on which I had the pleasure of coming back from Rio de Janeiro, with my naval aide in command of it. The name of that ship was the U.S.S. Missouri, and if I am not mistaken, at its launching — which I at- tended, and my daughter was the sponsor — at that point it had cost $101 million. Now people wonder why Government has expanded, and the cost has increased. I am giving you those two illustrations to show you why that is the case. We are not living in 1790, and we can't go back to 1790. We have got to go forward with the world. Now you young gendemen, and the mem- bers of the classes of Annapolis and West Point, are here in this and those two schools for a special purpose. We must have lead- ers in this great Nation of ours, which has now assumed a position of the leadership of the free world. The Office of the President of the United States is the greatest responsibility in the history of the world, and the Office of the President of the United States cannot func- tion unless he can depend upon the leader- ship of all those services that make up the Government of the United States. You are here at this school for the pur- pose of learning and understanding leader- ship, and when you come out of this school you not only will be able to understand leadership but you will be better citizens of this great Republic. People do not appreciate, yet, the fact that the responsibility of this Nation in the world is the greatest responsibility that has ever come to any nation in the history of the world. I hope that you young gentlemen will study that situation and appreciate just ex- actly what it means to be a part — and you will be a part — of the Government. The Government is based on just one thing: the sovereignty of the people who are gov- erned. And that sovereignty is every in- dividual in the country. That includes the man who digs ditches. It includes the man who lives on Park Avenue in New York. It includes the man who inhabits the White House in Washington. We are all a part of that Government, and that Government must assume its responsibility. I am happy to be here today, and to have had a chance to review your Corps, and to hear it reported by a certain very high offi- cial that the Coast Guard can out-march the Navy. That remark was made by a very high official in this great State, and a Naval Reserve officer. I have been very much afraid that the naval aide would probably take it up with the Secretary of the Navy, and see if a court-martial wouldn't be in order. But I want to say to you that I will pardon him if they convict him of anything, provided that this is done before the 20th day of January. I hope that you young men will assume the responsibility which will be yours when you finish this great school. I hope you will be better citizens for having been here at this school. All of you will no doubt have an opportunity to become officers in the Coast Guard, one of the Nation's great services. The Coast Guard and the Secret Service are a part of the Treasury Department. You never hear much about them in headlines and things of that sort, except when there is a disaster of some kind, or when the Presi- dent himself gets into trouble. And you will find the Coast Guard and the Secret Service on the job and doing exactly what they are supposed to do. I was just reading the other day about the Coast Guard's icebreaker that has been closer to the North Pole than any other ship in delivering food and supplies to a station up there which it is necessary for us to have in that neighborhood. That, my young friends, is what makes this country great. People are perfectly will- ing to do their duty by the Government, and do it because it is their duty, and not with any hope of personal aggrandizement. I hope that sometime or other, when I be- 585 [255] Sept. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents come a citizen again, and get out of that great white jail, that you may let me take a ride with you on your rolling, rocking sail- ing ship in which you get your training. I appreciate very much this privilege, and I hope that all of you will be successful graduates of this great school. note: The President spoke at 12:45 p.m. in the Cadet Mess Hall at the Coast Guard Academy at New London, Conn. In his opening words he referred to E. J. Roland, commandant of the cadets. Later he referred to John W. Snyder, Secretary of the Treasury. Prior to his remarks the President had received an etching of the Eagle, the Coast Guard training ship. 256 Remarks to a Group of Actors and Officials of the Motion Picture Industry of India. September 22, 1952 Mr. Johnston, and members of this delega- tion: It is a very great privilege and a pleasure for me to welcome you here at the White House. I hope you are having a pleasant and instructive visit here, and that you will carry back to your great country an opinion of this country that will continue our friend- ship forever. We are anxious, as you are, for a friendly and peaceful world all the way around. [A flash bulb exploded at this point] There must be a Communist in the bunch — interrupted me at the psychological moment. At any rate, I know that your ideas of a peaceful world and ours coincide, and I know that you are working for peace with everything you have. That has been my objective for 7 long years and more, and I shall continue to work for that objective whether I am in office or whether I am not. You are cordially welcome here. Any courtesies that we can cause to be extended to you, we will be glad to have them done. I know that you are in good hands, because Eric Johnston will see that you get every- thing that is necessary, so far as seeing the country and finding out how these gentle- men back here do their business from our end. If they are as persistent with you as they are with me, they will use up a million yards of film before you leave the country. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 11 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. His opening words referred to Eric Johnston, president o£ the Motion Picture Association of America. 257 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce Directing Him To Head a Mission To Survey European Industrial Progress. September 24, 1952 [ Released September 24, 1952. Dated September 20, 1952 ] My dear Mr. Secretary: You recently informed me of your survey which will furnish the basis and groundwork for business planning in this country and continued high standards of living after production for defense levels off. It would seem that an examination of conditions and prospects in Europe might be a desirable complement to that survey. The success of our effort toward world peace depends substantially not only upon the industrial power of the United States but upon the continued economic stability of our allies. We need strong and prosper- ous economies both here and abroad to pro- tect and maintain the free nations. We and our European allies are now well along in our joint defense efforts. In the light of your present survey and problems which will develop in the coming months, I 586 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 25 [258] feel that it might be helpful if you as the Secretary of Commerce and the member of the Administration most concerned with business and industry and commerce should head up a group who will review on the ground in Europe industrial problems and progress, with particular emphasis upon and attention to our business relations abroad and the effect of our policies upon growing busi- ness in other countries. Your responsibilities in connection with the promotion of foreign trade as well as the administration of export controls given to you by the Congress and by me, your famil- iarity with the problems involved in the cur- rent imbalance of trade, and your general interest in commerce should make such a survey interesting and helpful to you in your official capacity and would, I believe, be help- ful to me and others as a basis for future guidance. In particular it will enable you to make helpful suggestions in connection with the operation of Point IV as it involves the question of private investment abroad and in that connection the responsibility imposed upon you by an Act of Congress for investi- gating and reporting to the Mutual Security Agency upon impediments to private invest- ment abroad. It would, I believe, be opportune for you to have associated with you on this mission Henry H. Fowler, head of the Office of De- fense Mobilization (personally if he can spare the time and by representative if he cannot), and a top-level official of the Treas- ury Department whose problems and inter- ests are parallel to yours. It might also be well if you could have associated with you in this enterprise one or two representatives of private business who are familiar with and could be helpful in connection with the prob- lems of private investment abroad and the methods by which we could cooperate with businessmen in other countries to promote our mutual interests in connection with the desired economic progress. I would hope that you could begin your planning in this undertaking in the near future and get the mission underway so that your conclusions and recommendations may be available before the end of this calendar year. I know that you will receive the complete cooperation of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Mutual Security Agency in whatever arrangements you would like to make. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Charles Sawyer, Secretary of Com- merce, Washington, D.C.] 258 The President's News Conference of September 25, 1952 the presidfnt. Please be seated. I have no statements to make. I will try to answer questions, if there are any. [1.] Q. Mr. President, the first one — do you agree with General Eisenhower that Senator Nixon completely vindicated him- self? the president. I have no comment. Q. Mr. President, do you care to contrib- ute anything to the Nixon fund controversy? the president. I have no comment. Q. Mr. President, may I ask this? Did you see his defense on television? THE PRESIDENT. I did not. Q. Thank you. [2.] the president. May,1 how did you leave the North Pole? Mrs. Craig. Well, we struck a warm spell comparatively, so it was pretty good. the president. It must have been a nice trip. Mrs. Craig. Yes, sir. Very, very inform- ative. the president. Tell us about it some day, 1Mrs. May Craig of the Portland (Maine) Press Herald. 587 [258] Sept. 25 Public Papers of the Presidents when we have things that are of no impor- tance on. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect to touch on the Nixon fund on your coming campaign through California? the president. Well now, you will have to wait and see. I suppose you will be along. Q. I am anxious to go. the president. I am not making any fore- casts of what will take place on that trip because I don't think it would be as interest- ing to you. If you have something to specu- late about, then you have a story to write, don't you see, whether it's true or not. [Laughter.] [4.] Q. Mr. President, Lamar Caudle2 says he is informed that you are now very sorry you fired him the president. Never heard of it. I have never been sorry. [5.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a ques- tion about foreign relations? the president. Surely. Q. Do you think the development in the relations between the United States and Ger- many will lead to a change in the future of the confiscated German properties in the United States, which is now approximately $250 million? the president. That is such a compli- cated question that I would have to get a Philadelphia lawyer to work it out, so I can't answer it. Q. A little complicated to take down. the president. I understand that, so you will have to get the "asker" to give it to you after you get out of here. Well, are you running out of "soap" ? [6.] Q. Mr. President, other testimony that came up in the Caudle case involved what he called — the White House said — McGrath3 called the White House clique, that 2Theron Lamar Caudle, former Assistant Attor- ney General in charge of the Tax Division. 8 J. Howard McGrath, former Attorney General. the president. Never heard of it. Q. Never heard of the White House clique ? the president. Never heard of the White House clique. They have had several names for the members of the President's staff, but I believe that's a new one. [7.] Q. Mr. President, the stories last night and this morning seemed to indicate a slight difference of opinion between Sena- tor Taft and General Eisenhower as to whether or not the Taft-Hartley Act could be used for union-busting. I wonder if you have any comment? the president. No, I haven't any com- ment. I am glad to hear of that difference of opinion, however. [Laughter] [8.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any idea what Mr. McGrath might have had in mind, when he said he knew information that might blow the White House up to be- come a satellite the president. Not the slightest. He did not take me into his confidence. [9.] Q. Mr. President, the American Medical Association announced a few days ago that it is disbanding the group that has been fighting your health insurance pro- gram. They said they considered their bat- tle won and the battle finished. Do you think it is finished ? the president. I think what finished their battle was a speech — a certain speech that the President of the United States made in Philadelphia.4 I think that wound them up. They admit now that they have been wrong. [10.] Q. Mr. President, you had the Norwegian Prime Minister 5 as your lunch- eon guest yesterday. Can you tell us about your talk with him ? the president. Had a very pleasant visit with the Norwegian Prime Minister. He is a fine gentleman. He was in Norway when my daughter visited there, and he * See Item 249. 5 Prime Minister Oscar Torn. 588 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 25 [258] spent a great deal of his time telling me what a fine daughter I had. And, of course, that made a hit with me. [Laughter] [11.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the public is entitled to know the names of the contributors to the Stevenson fund? the president. I have no comment. Q. If you had such a fund, would you announce the names of the contributors? the president. I have no comment. Q. Well, Mr. President, did you ever have such a fund ? the president. No. I was like Spark- man. Mrs. Truman was my secretary. That helped me pay my board when I was in the Senate. [12.] Q. Mr. President, are there any issues that you particularly think you will stress in your swing through New York State? the president. Through New York State? Q. Yes, sir. the president. Well, I think I will say to you just what I said to my friend down here, you will have to wait and see. I would like to make one comment. They have been poking fun at our candidate, Gov- ernor Stevenson, because he likes to put his audiences in a good humor. I found a quota- tion, I think, that will cover that. It is an admonition, in Matthew 6. It says, "Be not as the hypocrites, sad of countenance." [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, will you repeat that, sir? the president. "Be not as the hypocrites, sad of countenance." [13.] Q. Mr. President, as a Democrat and a politician, are you glad or mad that Nixon is still on the Republican the president. No comment. Q. Well, Mr. President, would you con- sider the Nixon fund matter one for TV judgment or grand jury judgment? the president. No comment. There is one matter I want to call your at- tention to, that might be of interest to you. Give you something to read. Back in — let's see — September 27, 1951, I sent a message to Congress 6 which was most important at that time, and today has be- come much more important. I invite you to read it. It has about two mimeographed pages — won't take you long to read it. En- lighten you considerably. Q. What's it about, sir? the president. Well, read it. Q. Wasn't that the message suggesting that everybody lay on the line their income? the president. That's right. You guessed right. I want you to read it. I want you to read that message. Q. September 27? the president. September 27, 1951, just a year ago. Q. You still believe, then, that all Federal officials getting top salaries should make public the president. Read the message. It speaks for itself. Q. Yes — wasn't that what it said, though? the president. Yes. Q. And you are still for the message ? the president. Yes. I stand behind every message I send to the Congress. [Laughter.] [14.] Q. Mr. President, in mentioning that Mrs. Truman served as your secretary, were you suggesting that it is difficult to get along on a Senator's salary and allowances? the president. In those days it was ex- ceedingly difficult. We had no expense ac- counts or anything of the sort when I was in the Senate. Q. Mr. President, do you think it is just as difficult now? the president. Well they get much more pay now than they did when I was in the Senate — lots more emoluments than I did when I was in the Senate. Q. You feel it wouldn't be as difficult? 6 For the President's special message to Congress recommending legislation requiring Government officials to disclose the sources of their incomes, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 237. 589 [258] Sept. 25 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. No comment. [Laughter] [15.] Q. Mr. President, I don't want to belabor this insurance point. I suppose you are speaking of Philadelphia — the speech you spoke of — you requested that they come forward with some other program ? the president. That's right. [16.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel now about the outcome of the election in November? the president. I am not a pollster. I am not a prophet, so I have no comment to make on that. Let the results speak for itself. Q. Do you have anything else for us, sir? the president. Not a thing. Reporter. Thank you, sir. note: President Truman's three hundred and seventeenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, September 25, 1952. 259 Remarks to the National Citizens' Committee on United Nations Day. September 26, 1952 Mr. Weil and members of the Committee: I wish to thank you for the resolution you have presented to me and for the thought that it expresses. Since I first came to the White House in 1945, 1 have worked to build and strengthen the United Nations. In this work, I think that I have done no more than the American people wanted me to do. This Nation looks upon the United Na- tions as the cornerstone of our foreign policy. We see in the United Nations the world's best hope for peace. We have pledged our support to the United Nations because it stands for the only principles upon which true peace can be based. These are the principles of mutual respect among nations and justice and morality in international affairs. These great principles were brutally vio- lated by the aggression in Korea. The authority and the future existence of the United Nations were threatened by that aggression. This Nation understood then and understands now that if we let brute force destroy the United Nations there can be no hope for peace any time in the future. The other free nations also realize this fact. They have joined with us in the defense of Korea and in the defeat of the Commu- nist aggressors there. When we entered the United Nations in 1945, we did not know that it would be put to the test so soon. But we did not enter lightly on this great international com- pact. We were determined at the outset — and we are determined now — that the United Nations will work, and we have sacrificed much to make it work. In spite of the great achievements of the United Nations, in spite of the hope that it holds for all mankind, we face within our borders a growing attempt to undermine it. Since Senator Vandenberg died, the old isolationists have grown bolder. They are urging us to abandon our allies, to pull out of Europe and out of Korea, to slash our mutual security program, and to turn back in our onward march toward peace. This attack on the United Nations offers us no plan for the future and no hope for even- tual success. The enemies of the United Nations tell us one day to pull out of Korea — and on the next day they tell us to extend the conflict even further. They ask us to reduce our defenses and at the same time to take steps that create a greater risk of total war. They lament the loss of millions of people to Communist enslavement, and yet, at the same time, they recommend that we should cut off aid to those who are still free. We must disregard this hysterical and conflicting advice. We must withstand the 590 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 26 [260] efforts of those who would play politics with security and the welfare of our Nation and the freedom of our allies. This is the last time that I shall meet with this group while I am President. My last official word to you is to continue your work for the United Nations with all your might and main. You must give even more of your energies to telling the people in this country and around the world about the basic concepts of the United Nations. You must make it clear that the United Nations is supported by the people. The world problems we face are not ordinary ones. They are not — and must not become — questions of party politics. They involve not only the fate of our own Nation but the future hopes and aspirations of mankind. We should not become discouraged by the obstacles that lie ahead. Instead we should understand that in the difficulties of this time we have a glorious opportunity — the opportunity to attain the greatest prize the world could hope for — a just and lasting peace. note: The President spoke at noon in the Rose Garden at the White House. In his opening words he referred to Frank L. Weil, chairman of the Na- tional Citizens' Committee on United Nations Day. On July 17, the President had signed Proclama- tion 2981, "United Nations Day, 1952" (3 CFR, 1 949-1 953 Comp., p. 162), designating October 24, 1952, as the date of observance. 260 Remarks to Representatives of the National Council of Churches. September 26, 1952 DOCTOR, I am highly appreciative of the privilege of receiving this first copy of the new revised version and translation of the Old and New Testaments. My mother owned a big deckle-edged Bible published in 1881, which contained the first revised version of the New Testament parallel to the King James version. I was raised on that book, and I want to say to you that my fondness for the King James version will never leave me. I shall read this with great interest, and try to use it for a better understanding of the Bible on which I was brought up. The only thing that James I of England and James VI of Scotland are remembered for is the fact that they had a number of scholars — such as you had in this under- taking— make a direct translation of the Old Testament and the New Testament from what they thought were the original docu- ments on which they were first set up. Now you have gone further, and have, I am sure, investigated other documents that clarify the meaning of the words in the King James version. And I am certainly most happy to have it. I think, as you said, that if people under- stood the contents of this book from cover to cover, and we could get a complete under- standing of it behind the Iron Curtain, there would be but one thing in this world: peace for all mankind. Maybe we can accomplish that some time. I hope you gentlemen will keep working at it. I have made an effort on that subject for 7 years, to get the moral forces of the world in opposition to the unmoral forces. The people who believe in the teachings of the 20th Chapter of Exodus, and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Chapters of the Gospel accord- ing to St. Matthew can't hold any malice against his neighbor or his friend if he does what is right. Thank you a lot. I appreciate it very much. note: The President spoke at 12:20 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. His opening word "Doctor" referred to Dr. Luther A. Weigle, dean emeritus of Yale Divinity School, and chair- man of the Standard Bible Committee which pre- pared the new revised standard version of the Bible. 591 [261] Sept. 26 Public Papers of the Presidents 261 Remarks to Delegates to the International Conference on Agricultural and Cooperative Credit. September 26, 1952 IT IS a pleasure indeed to have you come to Washington and to pay a visit to the White House. I am vitally interested in the work which you have been studying. I am more than vitally interested in the suc- cessful operation of what we call the point 4 program. It is a program to help people to help themselves. It is a program to help the development of the natural resources of all these great countries for the benefit of the people themselves who live in the countries who own the resources. It has wonderful implications, in that if it can be successfully operated all around the globe, the improvement of the living stand- ards and conditions of all the people in the world will be affected. And if that is done, our objective will be attained, because that will be the greatest contribution that we can make to peace in the world. It is starving people and people who have grievances against their overlords that cause revolutions and that contribute to the Com- munist movement, which in the long run is the greatest totalitarian force in existence in the world today — the greatest force for evil that ever has been in existence. There isn't any difference between the manner in which the totalitarian so-called Communist States treat their inhabitants and the way in which Hider treated his people. They are exactly parallel in the way they manage things, only they call them by different names. What we are trying to do is get the free peoples of the world to understand that free- dom of action, and freedom of approach — such as you have been studying here today — is much the better way to get prosperity and a better standard of living in the world. I am more than happy that you have had a session with the University of California, one of our great universities; and I sincerely hope that these meetings and these instruc- tive conferences can be continued over the years. You see, I am going to be out of a job on the 20th of January, but I don't want this program which was inaugurated under the good Dr. Bennett to be stopped on that account. And I don't think it will, because you people can keep it going. And I want to say to you that this country has no ambitions territorially to dominate any country in the world. We have all we can do to take care of our own country. I want to call your attention to one thing in particular. We have neighbors on the south of us. We have neighbors on the north of us. You won't find those neigh- bors in any way alarmed or afraid of the great Republic of the United States. We are their friends, and they know we are their friends. They know we have no ulterior motives on their resources, or their peoples, or their political setup. Now if we could get the whole world to feel that way, if we could get the neighbors of the Soviet Republic to feel that way, if the Soviet Republic would act to its neigh- bors as we act to ours, I don't think there would be any chance for a third world war. Peace is what I want. And I think this, organization, and this program, will make a greater contribution to peace than any other one thing that could happen in the world. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 1:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. In the course of his remarks he referred to Dr. Henry G. Bennett, the first Administrator of the Technical Cooperation Administration. The conference included some 75 delegates from 35 countries, participants in a training program de- signed primarily to better equip leaders in countries 592 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 26 [262] where point 4 programs were being carried out. Following a seminar at the University of California, the participants were touring the United States to visit small cooperatively-owned credit institutions as well as some of the marketing and consumer cooperative enterprises. 262 Remarks at a Luncheon With Members of the National Symphony Orchestra. September 26, 1952 Mr. President, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Magnu- son, Mrs. Truman: I appreciate most highly this scroll which you have given me. I sincerely wish that I deserved the statement that I am the most musical President. My musical knowledge and ability has been greatly overrated, as have some of my faults and foibles. But I am more than happy to have this scroll. I shall have it framed and keep it for the rest of my life. I am very much interested in music. I am more than interested in the success of this Washington Symphony Orchestra. Washington should have one of the great symphony orchestras of the world, and it is gradually approaching that condition. I want to see that consummated. Washington should have an auditorium that would seat 40,000 people, with a music hall and an opera house in addition to it. When I was vice chairman of the Com- mittee on Public Buildings and Grounds in the Senate in 1935, Senator Connally was the chairman of that committee at that time, and we got a bill through the Senate author- izing the construction of an auditorium to seat 35,000 people. In fact, it passed the Senate twice. It was murdered in the House both times by the efforts and the lobbying of the adjoining chambers of commerce of these big cities that are around Washington. Now they did not appreciate at that time that Washington was to become the capital of the world — the free world, that Wash- ington was to be the most interesting city in the world so far as free government is concerned. It has been my privilege to go to Mexico City, and to Rio de Janeiro and to Paris, and in each one of those great cities one of the showplaces is their national opera house. They have great symphony orchestras also in those cities. And the London Symphony is also one of the great symphonies of the world. Now there isn't any reason in the world why Washington shouldn't have a place for the greatest symphony in the world to assemble and play for the benefit of the public. I hope that time will come. I have always been interested in the welfare of this organization. Mrs. Truman has done the work, and I — I am afraid — have received the credit and the scroll. But maybe I can add a "Mrs." to that scroll and make it work. Another thing I am sorry for is that I didn't get over here in time to have lunch with you, but this has been one of my busiest days, and it's only half done. Therefore, I am sorry to say, I will have to rush back to the White House and get myself ready to make a broadcast this afternoon, and one tonight, and a lot of other things that the President does that nobody knows anything about. I have already received a scroll this morn- ing from the United Nations, of which I will think just as much as I do this one. And I have had the point 4 program people in who have been studying at the University of California. They came from Pakistan and India and Indonesia and Malaya and the Philippines and Central American coun- tries. And they are over here studying our methods of farm management and farm control. That, my friends, is what eventually will give us peace in the world. Our idea is to help people to help themselves. And if we do that, and if we cultivate the greatest 593 [262] Sept. 26 Public Papers of the Presidents musical center in the history of the world — which we can do — we then will charm these people into a frame of mind that will cause peace to come and last forever. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 1:30 p.m. at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. His opening words referred to Gordon S. Reid, president of the Symphony Board Association and chairman of the luncheon, Mrs. Paul Magnuson, president of the Women's Committee of the National Symphony Orchestra, and his wife, Mrs. Truman. 263 Letter to the Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Requesting Him To Make an Economic Study. September 27, 1952 [Released September 27, 1952. Dated September 26, 1952] Dear Mr. Chairman : I would like the Federal Trade Commis- sion to launch a special investigation to give us a breakdown of the consumer's dollar. We need to know, per unit of product, how much of the consumer's dollar goes for labor costs, material costs, distribution costs, profits, etc. We should have such in- formation for all items important in the budgets of America's families. No such comprehensive data have been prepared by any Government agency. As I have emphasized to you in earlier discussions, this information is badly needed for several reasons. In the first place, we need the information to help in settling labor disputes. Both sides in a dispute usually present their own estimates of how much a given wage increase would affect labor costs, profits and prices. And then they spend a lot of time arguing about which estimates are correct. Particularly in these days of preparedness, when it is essential to settle labor disputes as promptly as possible, we should have available a set of agreed-upon facts. Such facts would also be useful in the task of keeping prices from rising further. Then, too, we need more information to show how much of the consumer's dollar spent for food and other farm products actually goes to manufacturers and distribu- tors as compared with what gets back to the farmers. Powerful interests are at work trying to convince the consumer that it is the farmer who is responsible for the high cost of living. Figures of the Department of Agriculture, however, show that the farmer receives only about half of the consumer's food dollar and far less for other products such as cotton and tobacco. Let us get the full facts on where the rest of the consumer's dollar goes. Moreover, the information would be help- ful to businessmen and investors. The in- dividual man could compare his costs with those of the industry as a whole and thus get some idea as to his relative efficiency. Similarly, investors and lending institutions would be provided with a standard against which they could compare the efficiency of companies seeking financial assistance. The consumer has a right to know who is getting his dollar. When he pays a high price at the retail store, how much of that price does the retailer get? How much does the wholesaler get? How much goes for transportation? How much did it cost the manufacturer to produce the product, and of those manufacturing costs how much went to labor, to materials, to overhead, etc. ? Government, too, must have the facts if it is to deal intelligently and responsibly with the major interest groups in the country. I believe firmly that each of the major groups that make our private enterprise system work — farmers, labor and business — can do their job effectively only if they have full access to the facts. I wish you would give me your views as to the most feasible and economical way of gathering this information. I will expect you to make the best possible use of existing 594 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 27 [264] data and government facilities under the general coordinating work of the Bureau of the Budget. How can we best learn what additional facts are needed in this area? And how soon can you begin work on this project? The Federal Trade Commission is the logical agency to undertake this program. The Commission is a bi-partisan agency and has a long and distinguished record for ob- jective fact-finding studies. The Commis- sion has both the powers and the experience for the job. I am very much interested in this matter. I feel that Congress will also be interested, since the program will provide essential information to Congressional Committees concerned with economic stabilization, labor disputes, monopoly problems and similar matters. I hope you will give it your imme- diate attention. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable James M. Mead, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.] note: In his letter of reply, dated and released September 29, Chairman Mead stated that the Commissioners were unanimous in the belief that "this would be one of the most useful tasks which the Commission could perform." He added that a report would be submitted to the President fol- lowing public hearings, to which would be invited representatives of interested public and private or- ganizations, and after consultation with other Gov- ernment agencies. 264 Radio and Television Remarks Opening the Nation's Community Chest Campaign. September 27, 1952 [Broadcast from the White House at 10:55 p.m.] We are helping those who need our help. These acts of voluntary helpfulness — helpfulness without compulsion of laws or government — constitute some of our deepest and finest traditions. The early pioneers used to help one another with "house raisings." Neighbors would come from miles around to help the new settler clear a place in the woods and build his log cabin. This tradition has lived and grown with our Republic. But today it has to show it- self in new ways. In our thriving towns and cities, where we are all so dependent on one another, we have to ask our local welfare groups to provide the help our forefathers used to provide personally. Yet all of us can feel we have a personal stake in this good work when we make our contribution for Community Chest services. Needs which must be met by these services are always great. This year is no exception. In addition, the United Defense Fund in most cities is included this year in your United Community campaign. Through this fund you make possible USO clubs and camp shows for the defenders of our coun- My fellow Americans: Next week, throughout the Nation, we are beginning our annual Red Feather campaigns. In more than 1,600 towns and cities all across the country, the month of October marks the start of our united campaigns to raise voluntary funds for health and welfare services. This annual drive is one of the finest and most important things that ever happens in America. When we open our hearts and our pocketbooks to meet the needs of others, we are at our best. In this great land of ours, we live together as neighbors. Over nineteen hundred years ago, Jesus Christ was asked the question: Who is my neighbor? He replied with the immortal story of the Good Samaritan — how he helped a stranger he found by the roadside, a man who had been robbed and beaten and left for dead. Our duty to our neigh- bors is the same today as it was in the time of Jesus. When we contribute to the Community Chest, we are doing as He taught us to do. 595 [264] Sept. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents try. You also make possible blankets and clothing which will bring warmth and com- fort to the war-torn families of Korea this winter. Through your Red Feather pledges, homeless children are given shelter and care; destitute older people are provided for; boys and girls are guided into paths of good citizenship; families beset by misfortune are given help. We simply cannot neglect these good things — these necessary things. We simply cannot fail to do our full share in this good work. Working together for the common welfare is an American habit. Let's keep that habit strong. Let's give generously again this year. 265 Statement by the President on the Death of David K. Niles. September 28, 1952 IN THE DEATH of David K. Niles early this morning I have lost a close friend and a trusted associate. He served two Presidents of the United States in positions of the highest trust and confidence. Presidents have been served by many able men, but seldom by one so truly selfless. His passion for anonymity was matched only by his sense of public respon- sibility. David Niles' quick mind and warm heart were always in the service of humanity. One of his greatest wishes, unfortunately, was denied him. He had wished to visit Israel, whose birth and future development were close to his heart. In the work he did for displaced persons, untold numbers of people, many of whom may never know his name, have found a chance to live again in dignity. We are closer to our American dream of equal rights and opportunity be- cause of programs he initiated. I have lost a valued assistant. The under privileged people of the world have lost a great and steadfast friend. note: Mr. Niles served as Administrative Assistant to the President from August i, 1942, through May 3i>i95i- 266 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana. September 29, 1952 [ 1 . ] Breckenridge, Minnesota ( Rear plat- form, 7:30 a.m.) I suppose that you good people, this early in the morning, understand that there isn't any secret about the purpose of my trip out here. I am out campaigning for the Demo- cratic ticket. You see, I have been in elec- tive public office for 30 years — been elected time and again by the Democrats; and for your information I don't think, in the first place, I ever ran for an office that I wanted, but when I had that office, I tried to do it to the best of my ability, and I wouldn't let the opposition take it away from me — as was demonstrated in 1948. You have some wonderful Democrats run- ning for office here in Minnesota, and I hope you will vote for all of them. You have Or- ville Freeman running for Governor, and William E. Carlson running for Senator, and Curtiss Olson running for Congress. And I certainly would like to see a Democratic Senator named Carlson in the Senate who would do the right thing. And there's the national ticket of Adlai Stevenson for President, and John Sparkman for Vice President. Governor Stevenson of Illinois is the most promising young leader we have had in a generation. Not since the start of Franklin D. Roosevelt's career have we had a man with a background that Adlai 596 Harry S. Truman, igp Sept. 29 [266J Stevenson of Illinois has. He has made a wonderful Governor. He is a real friend of the common everyday man. And the prin- cipal thing I am interested in: He's not a stooge for Wall Street. That certainly is true of John Sparkman too. For 15 years he has been in Congress fighting for the interests of the plain people — farmers, workers, little businessmen. He has been the chairman of the Small Business Committee, and he has done a wonderful job to see that the contracts of the Govern- ment go into the hands of the small producers. These are men you can trust to lead this country, and to keep the interests of the common people at heart. Well, it's a good thing that the Demo- cratic Party does care about the interests of the everyday man. It's a sure thing that the Republicans don't give a hoot about his interests. I am suggesting that you might reflect on that a little bit, and just consider who is for you and who is against you. The farmers here might give some thought to price supports for storable commodities and for perishables. You might consider things like the REA — the Rural Electrification organization, and soil conservation, and flood control. And you people who work here in town might think about your schools and your health and housing. You might consider the jobs you have and the opportunities ahead of you. Think about the security you are building up through old-age insurance, or railway retirement. Give these things some thought. You ought to think about them very carefully, and find out what the Democratic record is. And then you want to find out what the Republican record is on those very same things, and you will find that the Demo- cratic Party has been your friend, and is your friend — and the Republican Party has been against you. Now I am not just making this up. I am not just talking election-year politics. What I say is true, and I can prove it. And I can prove it right out of the Republi- can record in Congress. That is where they have made their record, and that is where it counts. And they can get out and give you all kinds of "hooey" about things they believe now — trying to get your votes — but if you will take the Congressional Record, the dryest piece of reading in the history of the world, if you will read it you will find that they have been wrong on every issue where the interests of the people are concerned. Now I am going all over this country, and I am going to cite the record, chapter and verse, and they can't get behind it, because the record is made. They made it, and it's in fine print, in the Congressional Record. And, for your own welfare and benefit, you had better read that fine print. I hope to get back to Minnesota before I am through, and I am going to tell you a lot of things that will be to your interests. Then I want you to go home, just like you did in 1948. I want you to sit down — or kneel down and pray over them, and then vote for the welfare of the greatest free nation in the world. And if you do that, you can't do any- thing else but vote the Democratic ticket this time. This is the most important year in the history of this great country, and I hope that you will use your heads and your hearts and vote for your own interests, and for the interests of this great Nation. And if you do that, you will vote the Democratic ticket, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. I have a young lady I think maybe you'd like to meet {introducing his daughter Margaret). [2.] Fargo, North Dakota (Trainside, 8:45 a.m.) Well, my friends, I can't tell you how highly complimented I feel that you would 55-672—66 597 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents turn out at this time of day and in this tremendous number to see a man who is not even a candidate for office. I appre- ciate the fact that I have been introduced by the Democratic candidate for Congress, Mr. Nesemeier; and I want to urge you with everything I possibly have that the safety of the country depends on your voting the Democratic ticket on the 4th of November. That is what I am going to do. This is the beginning of what the news- papers call a whisdestop trip. You know, that phrase was invented by Senator Taft back in 1948. And I am sure he wishes he hadn't said it. The Republicans were trying to make fun of my efforts to take the issues in that campaign directly to the peo- ple all over the country. I took them there and the people understood me and believed me. They found out, the Republicans did, that it wasn't so funny after all, and they haven't been able to crack a smile since. A lot of people came out to meet the train 4 years ago at this place, and I told them the truth about what was going on in Wash- ington. When November came, they voted right, and I'm sure they're going to vote right again when they get a chance. This time I'm not asking you to vote for me, but that isn't going to make one little bit of difference. I'm still going to tell you the truth about your Government — and about the Republi- can record, too — and when I get through I think you will know a lot more about both subjects than you can learn from the one- party press in this country. You know, I have been running for office and been elected for 30 years and I never had the press with me in my life, and if they did get with me I'd know I was wrong! Now you're going to get the facts, and when you do I know you're going to elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman and a real Democratic Congress. That is what this country needs worse than anything. Adlai Stevenson will be one of the coun- try's greatest Presidents. He has everything that is required for the Presidency — great ability, experience in civil government, hu- mility, and a deep feeling for the everyday man. Governor Stevenson has been making the issues clear in this campaign. I hope you've been listening to his speeches, and I hope you have been reading them, too. If you have, you know he has been talking straight from the shoulder about the problems that face this Nation, and about the great decisions that will have to be made during the next 4 years. I'm sorry that his opponent is not doing the same thing. The Republican candidate for President says he's going to try to win this election by appealing to the people's emotions, and not to their intellects. That's why you won't find anything in most of his speeches except slogans, generalities, and scare words. I think it's insulting to the American people to tell them they make up their minds according to their emotions, and not on the basis of the great issues that are before them. Now, on this trip I'm going to talk facts, and I'm going to talk issues. I'm going to talk about every phase of our domestic and foreign policy, and I'm going to talk about the record of my administration in terms that everybody can understand. And you people today — and the historians in the years to come — will find that the rec- ord of the administration of Harry S. Tru- man is a pretty good one. The last 4 years have been years of fighting for peace in the world and working for a strong and prosper- ous Nation here at home — and they have been successful years. We've crushed the Communist conspiracy in this country. And we've stopped the ad- vance of communism all over the globe. We moved into Korea to make it plain to the Kremlin that the free countries of the world don't plan to engage in appeasement — for we have learned from bitter experience that appeasement is the road to total war. The Communists have been stopped cold in Korea. And the Communists haven't 598 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] crossed another frontier since, anywhere in the world. At home, we've made great progress in a mighty program to strengthen our national defense. We're in a much stronger position now to bring about a just and lasting peace than we have been before. And while we've been carrying out this great program of combating communism and building strength, we've maintained the prosperity and the high standard of living which have become almost synonymous with having Democratic administrations in Wash- ington. So the record is good. But in spite of this, the Democratic ad- ministration is being subjected to the most abusive, intemperate, and vicious campaign we have had in years. The Republican Party has launched a crusade, they call it, to exter- minate the Democrats — by propaganda, lies, slander — by any means, fair or foul. Now, why is this? It's because, so long as I have been in office I have been fighting for the common man. I've been fighting against the special inter- ests, and they are out to get me and destroy all I have done. They are not going to suc- ceed, though. Now, who are these special privilege groups that are behind this vicious attack? Who are the groups behind the Republican candidate, pulling the strings ? I'm going to tell you. First, there is the power lobby. It wants to do away with low cost public power. There's the grain speculation lobby that doesn't want the farmer to get the price of the crops he raises. Then there's the railroad lobby that's been jacking up your freight rates in North Dakota — and fighting tooth and nail against the St. Lawrence Seaway so you can't get the right kind of freight rates. Then there's the real estate lobby that wants to gouge everyone who needs a home to live in. Then there's the rich man's tax lobby that's always trying to open up tax loopholes for the wealthy. And there's the tariff lobby that wants to raise tariffs so they can pick up some extra profits for themselves, even though it means losing the world market for your grain. In short, it's all the special privilege groups from the oil lobby to the China lobby, and they've all joined together behind the Re- publican Party. And I am glad they are in the Republican Party because I am going to tear them apart before we get through. Now, what has this unholy crew decided to try to make the big issue in this campaign? They seem to be putting most of their effort into a terrific drive to make you believe that your Government is full of corruption from top to bottom. Let me tell you what the truth is. The fact is that most of the 2l/2 million men and women who work for the Government are some of the finest and most honorable people in this country. However, there have been some people in the Government who have betrayed the trust that was placed in them. That has been true of all administrations, throughout the history of this country. It is just as true in private business. It is true even in the United States Army. Wherever there are people who are in a position to have bribes offered to them, some of those people are going to be weaklings. When we have found such people in this administration, we have acted — and we have acted on the basis of facts, and not on sus- picion or rumor. Every charge has been investigated. The guilty people have been discharged, and prosecuted when the facts warranted prosecution. Betrayal of the public trust is damnable, and those who are guilty of it ought to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And as long as I am President they will be. The people who gave the bribes and the people who took them should all be behind the bars. I know of nobody who has found a way to prevent some people from being — or be- coming—dishonest. If anybody has a 599 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents formula, I'm very sure that the American Bankers Association, for one, would pay a lot to get that formula. They have tempta- tion in their business just as we have it in the Internal Revenue Bureau, and last year there were something like 600 defalcations and embezzlements in the banks of this country. One out of every 300 bank officers was found to be crooked. And the record of the Internal Revenue Bureau is a great deal better than that, I am here to tell you. I most certainly do not condone dis- honesty in Government — and I do not under- take to excuse it — but I think you ought to get the facts about this and you ought to have the facts straight, and I am giving them to you straight from the shoulder. One of the fairest comments on the In- ternal Revenue Bureau — and the Govern- ment as a whole — was made by your senior Senator from North Dakota, who is a Re- publican. Senator Langer said on the floor of the Senate last October, and I am going to quote him (this is Senator Langer speak- ing in the record of the Congress) : "Mr. President," — he is talking to the President of the Senate, who at the time was Alben Barkley — "I have listened with inter- est to the distinguished Senator from Dela- ware. Judging from his speech and from the various things we read in the news- papers, one would get the impression that Government officials are all a bunch of crooks and grafters. I wish to say that, in my opinion, Federal officials today are just as honest as were the Federal officials in 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, and 1932. It was only a very short time ago that, under a Republican administration" — and this is Senator Langer speaking — "a member of the Cabinet was sent to the penitentiary. "I want the people of the country to know that" — I am still quoting Senator Langer — "that the senior Senator from North Dakota believes that those who are today holding Federal positions are as honest, in propor- tion to the number employed, as they have ever been at any time in the history of the United States of America. When we con- sider that there are 2,500,000 Government employees, it is natural to expect that there will be some delinquents. Even Christ had his Judas. These charges of corruption are doing much more harm to the Government than they are doing good." That ends the quote from Senator Langer. Now, I am only human and I make mis- takes like everybody else. And not half as many as they charge me with, but I make them. But I have been working for the people of the United States just as hard as I can, and I have been doing an honest job. And you know that. I've cleaned up corruption in the Govern- ment wherever I've found it. But I haven't been satisfied just with getting rid of wrongdoers. I've tried to improve the Government's machinery for preventing corruption in the future. Do you know what's the biggest trouble I've run into in doing that? It's the opposi- tion of the Republicans in the Congress. They have voted against every reorganiza- tion plan I have proposed to take Govern- ment jobs out of politics and put them under civil service. For awhile they did that. I guess they thought maybe they might win this year but they are going to be disap- pointed. Now they don't want to get rid of corrup- tion. They just want to kick it around as a political football. The truth about the matter is that the special interest fellows who run the Re- publican Party are so anxious to get control of the Government for their own purposes that they won't stop at anything. They did not pick one of their own gang to be then- candidate for President. They knew the people would see through that. They picked a man who has spent all his life in the Army and doesn't know much about what they have been doing or about what has been going on in the United States. Then they swarmed all around him, they began selling him their special interest line of propaganda. He has swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, and he is doing and saying 600 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] exactly what they tell him to do and to say. He may not know it, but he has become the front man for the lobbies. They are sending him around the country with advance agents to put up billboards and balloons, and pass confetti. Now the Democrats never had the money to do that. No, they have plenty of money to put into these things. The Wall Street bankers are just pouring out the cash. The Republican candidate has a sign on the back of his train which says "Look ahead neighbor." Well, that's not what the sign ought to say. It ought to say this: "Look out neighbor." Now, I am going to tell you why. Let me tell you some of the things you had better look out for. Are you a farmer ? Have you been doing pretty well these last few years? Then you'd better "look out neighbor." The men who are going to write the farm ticket for the Republican candidate are no friends of yours. Do you own your own farm ? Then you'd better "look out neighbor." The last time you had a Republican administration, farm mortgages were being foreclosed so fast you couldn't count them. Are you covered by social security or rail- road retirement? Are you counting on that to help you in your old age? Then you'd better "look out neighbor." The Republi- can candidate for President said if the American people want security the best place for them to find it is in jail. I don't believe you all want to go to jail under a Republican administration. Do you have a job? Would you like to keep it ? Then you'd better "look out neigh- bor." There were 12 million to 14 million people unemployed in this country in 1932. Do you get good wages ? Then you'd bet- ter "look out neighbor." The Republican politicians do not believe in good wages — they have been against every step we have taken to raise the wages of the workingman every time it has come up in Congress. And above all, let me ask you: Do you want to avoid a third world war? Then you'd better "look out neighbor." The Republican candidate seems to be listening to some strange advice so far as foreign policy is concerned. These, my friends, are some of the real issues of this campaign. Don't be deceived by any smokescreen. Don't be misled by false propaganda. Don't turn this country of ours over to the special interests. Vote for the candidates who have your welfare at heart. Vote for Stevenson and the whole Demo- cratic ticket. And while you are doing that, you are voting for yourselves. And as I said once before, any farmer or businessman or a man who works with his hands for a living who doesn't vote the Democratic ticket this fall ought to have his head examined. And I am out to examine it if he does it. The best. thing you can do for the welfare of this country, and for the peace of the world, is to vote for Stevenson and the whole Democratic ticket this fall. Thank you very much. [3.] Grand Forks, North Dakota (Rear platform, 11 a.m.) You know, I thought I saw about half the people of North Dakota this morning over at Fargo. It looks like the other half is here. I appreciate it. This is a won- derful turnout. That is a wonderful wel- come, and I know that you are giving me that welcome as President of the United States, and not as a politician. But I am going to talk to you about some things about which there is no secret. I am out cam- paigning for the Democratic victory next November. You have some wonderful Democrats in this State running for office. For Gov- ernor you have got Ole C. Johnson. For Congress you have got Edward Nesemeier, 601 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents and for Senator, Harold A. Morrison. And he is on the train — with his opponent Senator Langer. I know North Dakota doesn't elect many Democrats to office, and I must say that some of the Republicans you send down to Washington are a lot better than a lot of the Democrats that are down there. How- ever, a good Democrat is even better than a good Republican. This time I wish you would send some Democrats down to the Congress. And don't forget, while you are doing that, to vote in your own interest and vote the national ticket for Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Governor Stevenson has made a great progressive record in Illinois, and in this campaign he is talking about the real issues and telling you exactly where he stands. He is a real friend of the common everyday man, and he is not a front man for the special interests or for Wall Street. And John Sparkman's record is just as good. He has always fought for the plain people of this country. These are men you can trust. They will look out for your interests. I am very much impressed with the way this region is prospering and growing. Con- sidering the terrible conditions in this State just 20 years ago, nobody could have believed you would be doing so well today. I saw some figures the other day which showed that right here, in Grand Forks County, bank deposits were seven times higher last year than in 1932. Of course, I suppose the few people who had any money in those days were lucky if they didn't have it in a bank. That condition is changed now. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, passed over the vicious and violent protests of the Republicans, has made bank deposits in all the banks safe. We haven't had a bank failure in goodness knows when, and we haven't had a bank receivership since I have been President. Here is another figure. Nearly three- fourths of the farms in this county are now owned by the farmers who work them, as compared with a little more than half just 20 years ago. And you don't hear about foreclosures and forced sales now, either. The farm is not the only place where things have improved around here. Look at this good city. There are 50 percent more businesses here than there were 20 years ago, and sales are seven times higher. The people who work in these businesses are far better off. Did you know, for example, that more than 6,000 people in your own county are protected by old-age and sur- vivors insurance? I can't give you a com- parison with 20 years ago because there wasn't any social security program in that day. The Democrats put them into effect after they came in. And if the Old Guard Republicans had their way, there wouldn't be any social security yet, you can be sure of that. It's a good thing the workers of this county have had the Democratic Party to help them, to help them get social security and union recognition, and all the other things we have done these past 20 years. It's a good thing for you railroad workers that you had a Democratic Congress to help you get union security. It is certain the Old Guard Re- publicans won't help you get things like that. Quite the contrary. A few days ago I wrote a letter to the American Federation of Labor Convention in New York City, and I mentioned that I had been reading the Wall Street Journal — some people call it the Bawl Street Journal — about Republican plans for labor laws even worse than the Taft-Hardey law. You should have heard the howl the one-party press put up on that one. They said it wasn't so, at all. Well, my friends, I knew exacdy what I was talking about. I have right here the copy of the Wall Street Journal for May 26, 1952. Let me read you the headline on the front page. It starts off: "New Labor Law. Congress Ponders Curb on Industry- wide Pay Bargaining by Unions. Action Not Likely Because of Election." But come 1953 you had better look out. 602 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 29 [266] And it says in this headline: "Mr. Taft Has Some Ideas." I expect he has, too. The article goes on to say: ". . . if the Re- publicans hold their own or gain new strength in the House or Senate, it's almost certain that there will be a new effort next year to crack down on the unions. And if the GOP controls Congress by a comfortable margin, the effort will probably succeed." Now, that is right here in this Wall Street Journal, and that is exactly what it says. But the kept press almost howled their heads off when I said that in the letter to the American Federation of Labor. This is one time I agree with the Wall Street Journal. It is very seldom I ever agree with them. I have been talking about some things that are important to the workers in this coun- try. But farmers shouldn't have any false ideas that what I have been saying doesn't affect them. It will affect them, too. Don't you think you can stand by while they kick labor around. You are not safe either — the Old Guard Republicans have got it in for you, too. Look at their record in Congress. You know what I mean. You remember how they tried to wreck rural electrification back in the 80th Congress. They voted four and five to one for cutting REA funds, and they did that not just once but four separate times. The only thing that saved REA was an even bigger ratio of Democrats who voted right on that subject. Just this spring a majority of the Republi- can Congressmen voted against continuing farm price support at 90 percent of parity. Now let me give you a concrete example of what the Republicans will do to you. Under their plan, if they had been able to put it through the Congress, you would be getting a support price loan of $2.13 a bushel at Minneapolis. You know what you are getting now, you are getting $2.46. And that support price law runs through 1953 and 1954. If we had got the Republi- can program, you would be right back where the farmers in the Corn Belt were in 1946, when they refused to give you storage space. The other day, Senator Taft said he was against this 90 percent of parity, too. Their candidate for President has claimed that he was for 90 percent of supports — parity, at least, he says, for the next 2 years, but he didn't seem to know about the rest of the party. The people who really run the national Republican Party can hardly wait to start using that sliding scale they love so much for price supports. They will use it if you give them the chance, and they will slide you right down to ruin. It all adds up to the same thing. The Old Guard Republican Party is against the interests of the plain everyday people of this country — workers, farmers, small business- men, and everybody else. The only interests that they care about are the special inter- ests— the big business in Wall Street — the big banks, the big lobbies. These are the fellows they are out to serve. Not you. They don't care anything about you. Now, don't let them fool you with a lot of campaign promises. They will tell you they are for what you think you want now, but when it comes to their voting record in the Congress, you will find out exactly what they will do to you when they have the oppor- tunity. Ask them to explain their terrible record of voting against the people. Ask them to explain why they voted against everything we 4have done to make this country strong enough to stave off world war three and safeguard peace. Ask that military man the Republicans are trying to make President of the United States. Ask the General to explain his party's record — and watch him squirm. He won't be able to explain the Republican Party's record. But I will tell you, my friends, you had better look it up, it's something to write home about. I am going to have a broadcast in this State pretty soon that will tell you just exactly what the record of those Republicans in Con- gress has been for the past 30 years and it 603 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents hasn't been in the interest of the farmer, the workingman, and the little businessman. That will show you exactly what is at stake for you in this election — you individually. That will show you where your interests lie. If you want this country to have a chance for peace and for prosperity, there's only one thing you can do that will save the country, and save you. That is to vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. If you really have your own interests at heart, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will vote for yourselves. And when you vote for yourselves, you will vote for the people's control of the Gov- ernment, and you will vote the Democratic ticket — and the country will be safe for an- other 4 years. [4.] Larimore, North Dakota (Rear plat- form, 12:10 p.m.) I am certainly happy to be with you this morning, and I want to say to you and call your attention to the fact that the United States of America is the only country in the world where a situation such as this could happen: when a candidate for Senator on the Democratic ticket introduces a candidate for Senator on the Republican ticket. That shows we have got a great country. I have been getting acquainted with your candidates this morning, and I have become very much impressed with them. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Nesemeier and Mr. Morrison are running for Governor and Congressman at Large and United States Senator. They are fine gendemen, and I am sure that if you decide to elect them, North Dakota will be well governed and well represented. I want to express the hope that you have been listening to Governor Stevenson's speeches, laying out his program, and what he would do if he were President of the United States. They show you he is a man who cares deeply about the people, and about peace and prosperity and progress for us all. He will fight for these things, and so will John Sparkman. Senator Sparkman has a fine record in Congress. He has been in the thick of the fight for things like flood control, rural electrification, price supports, and farm housing. We have come a long way since the Democrats took over 20 years ago. I am going to tell you more about it in a minute, but I want to call attention to the fact that — I guess he is here this morn- ing— there's a gendeman here who is the instructor of social sciences at the Larimore State High School, and he rode with me on the battleship Missouri from Rio de Janeiro. And I had a grand visit with him. If he is here, I would like very much to see him. I signed his shellback card on the battleship Missouri when we crossed the Equator. You know, they give you a pretty rough ride when you cross the Equator on one of these battleships. They initiate you into the Order of Neptune — they initiated my doctor. And they have to run the gauntlet when you do that. They have a bunch of great big tough sailors standing on each side of the deck, and they run you through a tank of water, and then they stand on each side with a rubber hose and see how fast you can run. And I can tell you, you can run pretty fast when that happens. Now that is what I am trying to do to the Republi- cans, I am trying to run them out of this game. You know they left you flat broke, mort- gaged out, flooded out, dusted out, with no solvent banks, no credit — nothing. Now we have got price supports. We have got flood control. We have got soil conservation. We have got farm credit and home loans. And we have got guaranteed bank deposits. We have the rural electri- fication cooperatives which made it possible for the farmers to get electricity on their farms. Only 10 percent of the farms in this county were electrified in 1950. Now the figure is nearly 90 percent, and it is climbing all the time. 604 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] We have these things because the Demo- cratic administrations understood the farm- er and believed in him, and set out to help him. The national Republican Party has never favored our work for farmers. Maybe they like the big corporation farmers, but they don't care for the little fellow on the family- sized farms. To prove that, look at their record in Con- gress. Their record was bad when they had a majority in that "do-nothing" 80th Con- gress. And it has been bad since then, when they were in the minority. They are still at it. Now this spring, a majority of House Republicans voted against continuing price supports at 90 percent of parity. If they had their way the loan price on wheat would be $2.13 instead of $2.46. That is the difference between the Demo- cratic plan and the Republican plan. Their candidate for President made a speech in Minnesota, and said he was in favor of 90 percent supports. Well, his Republican platform doesn't pledge that. It says "parity in the marketplace." Now, I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound very good for the farmers. "Parity in the marketplace" — now what do they mean by that? It might mean 25 per- cent— it might mean 10 percent — it might mean nothing. The Republicans in Congress invented the sliding scale, and are still voting for it. If I were you, I wouldn't trust the promises they make. Because they will tell you any- thing to get your votes, but when they get in control, they will cut your throat. They have done it — my goodness alive. They have done it in times past, and they will do it again, if they get the opportunity. You don't want to listen to what they say. You want to look at what they do and have done when they had the opportunity. Then decide what will be good for you and good for the country. That won't be hard to do. I will tell you that won't be hard to do. I went across this State in 1948, and told you exactly what the Republicans in- 55-672—66- -42 tended to do to you, and what they had tried to do to you. And if I hadn't been Presi- dent, you would have had your throats cut then. Your interests lie with the Democratic Party. In the United States today the Democratic Party is the party of the plain everyday man — the man who works for a living. We have proved that by the pro- grams we have carried on in the last 20 years. The Democratic platform pledges to con- tinue and improve these programs — no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And Adlai Steven- son stands squarely on the Democratic plat- form. I hope he will have the opportunity to come up here to North Dakota and tell you face to face just exactly how he stands on that Democratic platform. And when you see him and hear him, you will be satis- fied that he is the man that ought to be the next President of the United States. Stevenson stands for the things that have made this country great in the last 20 years, the things that have kept this country grow- ing and prosperous, and have made it the greatest republic in the history of the world. I am decidedly proud of my record as Presi- dent of the United States. I have got nothing whatever to apologize for. I am asking you people to carry on that record and keep the country the greatest free na- tion in the history of the world. That is what you will do if you vote for Adlai Stevenson. If you want progress, and if you want to go forward, and you want to look out for your own interests, the thing for you to do November the 4th is to go down to that voting booth and vote the Demo- cratic ticket straight, from top to bottom, and then your country will be safe for another 4 years. [5.] Lakota, North Dakota (Rear plat- form, 1:30 p.m.) I tell you, I do appreciate this wel- come. You know, when I got to Fargo this morning, I thought half the people in North Dakota were in Fargo. Then when 605 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents I got to Grand Forks I thought the other half was there, but I was mistaken in both instances — the other half is right here. I found out that this city of yours has a Sioux Indian name, which means allies, and it also has the same meaning as the word Dakota itself, which is another part of the Sioux language meaning allies. Well, you know, a person in politics, and a person in world affairs must have allies and friends if he expects to get along. And I am mighty happy to be in the city this morning that is named and believes in allies. You all know why I am here. In the first place, the President of the United States has to go around over the country once in a while and let the people see him, and let them understand just exactly what the office of the Presidency means. I am not here for that purpose this morning. I am here to talk politics to you. I am campaigning as the head of the Democratic Party. You know, the Presidency has five differ- ent offices, and it takes a man to fill each of them. But the President has to fill all five of them by himself. One of those five duties of his is to act as the head of the party to which he belongs when he is in the White House. And he is the head of foreign affairs. He makes the foreign policy of the United States. He is the Chief Exec- utive of the greatest Republic in the history of the world. He has to pass on every piece of legislation that is passed by the Con- gress. He has to make recommendations to the Congress. He has to make decisions that affect sometimes as many as a billion people — one of the greatest responsibilities in the history of the world. And then the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of this great Government of ours. He has to make deci- sions in the military affairs that affect the business of all the world — a tremendous responsibility. Then he has another responsibility that is a very pleasant one; he is the social head of the state. He has to entertain the visit- ing firemen when they come here, from Europe, Asia, Africa, and everywhere else. He has to be nice to queens and kings, presidents and prime ministers, and usually has to have luncheons for them. And — oh, it's a great job, I'll tell you. But any one of those five duties is enough to keep a man busy. Well now, this morning I am working as the head of the Democratic Party — as the leader of the Democratic Party. And I want to say to you, that I have been getting ac- quainted with these gentlemen to whom you were introduced just awhile ago, and I think they are a pretty good bunch of fel- lows. And if I was in North Dakota, I wouldn't have any trouble about voting the Democratic ticket — I would know that I was going to have good government if I did. And I hope you will get out the vote. I hope you will get everybody you possibly can to the polls. You know, it is a disgrace, the number of people in this great Republic of ours who stay away and do not do their civic duty on election day. We are lazy. Now these peo- ple who stay at home are the ones who do the most yelling about what is wrong with the Government when they don't get what they think they should have. They have no- body to blame but themselves. The power of this great Republic of ours rests in the people — in you — every single one of you here. And when you don't exercise the privilege which the Constitution of the United States gives you, you have nobody to blame but yourselves when you don't have the kind of government you want. Now I am urging you to go to the polls and vote for the national Democratic ticket, as well as your local ticket. When you put Stevenson and Sparkman — Stevenson in the White House and Sparkman to preside over the Senate, as the President of the Senate and Vice President of the United States — you will find that the country will be entirely safe for another 4 years. Both of those gen- 606 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] tlemen are fine men, with lots of experience working for the people. For 20 years the Democratic Party has had your interest at heart, and a lot has been ac- complished for you. Just remember how the Republicans left you back in 1932. You will see what I mean. The Republicans have an unbroken record of looking after special interests. They don't care about the farmer and the workingman and the consumer. Their outlook is no better now than it was 20 years ago. Look how they acted in that awful 80th Congress. You know I had a wonderful time in 1948 telling the people what a terrible Congress the 80th was, and the Republicans are still voting the same way. In the minority, in the Congress, they vote wrong every time they have an opportu- nity. Take the rural telephone loans for your RE A cooperatives. The Democratic 81st Congress started that program 3 years ago. Three and one-half millions worth of those loans have already been approved for the great State of North Dakota, but if the Re- publicans had had their way, there wouldn't have been any loans at all — or telephones either, for that matter. Fifty-three percent of the Republican Congressmen voted against the whole program, right at the start. And you know what they did — they tried to do the same thing to the farm loan storage business. If the Republican program had gone over, as I've told everybody up and down this track, right now the loan value of your wheat would have been $2.13 instead of $2.46. The strongest nerve in the voter is the pocketbook nerve. Remember that. The Republican candidate for President is trying to make you believe that he is for farm pro- grams and social gains, and everything else the Democrats have done. He is trying to make you think the national Republican Party has reformed. But his party is owned body and soul by the big money boys, and he can't change that. Maybe the candidate is just misinformed. He has been in the Army all his life and he hasn't had a chance to study politics like I have. You know, in this great country of ours, politics is government. It is the most honorable profession in the world because it is government. Now, it looked that way to me the other day when the head of the Republican ticket spoke down here at Kasson, Minnesota. There he brought up the terrible shortage of grain storage back in 1948 — when the 80th Congress stopped the Commodity Credit Corporation from providing storage space. He said the 80th Congress hadn't done anything wrong. Well that's not what the people thought, after I got through telling them how wrong it had been. Anyway, he said there was no shortage of grain storage back in 1948. Now, that's just plain hooey. Millions of farmers remember the shortage. The Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives admitted in this document right here that there was a shortage, and that the 80th Congress was to blame. Now listen to this. This is a report of the Banking and Currency Committee in the 8 1 st Congress, when they restored the grain storage proposition in the Commodity Credit Corporation: "It is, of course, neces- sary"— and I am quoting now from the report — "It is, of course, necessary that ade- quate storage facilities be available to pro- ducers before they can obtain the benefits of the price support program with respect to their crops. There have been many com- plaints that farmers were unable to obtain proper storage in many localities, either on their own farms, or in commercial facilities, and it is probable that farmers would have been able to place additional quantities of certain commodities under the price support program had storage been available to them. Restrictions contained in section 4(h) of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act approved in June 1948 — the 80th Congress — prohibited the Commodity Credit Corpora- 607 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents tion from taking any effective action toward alleviating the storage deficiencies, and would prevent it from doing so in the future." Well now, the 81st Congress cured that. And there was a certain Senator who is in the grain storage business who started this big lie about my not having told the truth in 1948 about the storage, and I am sorry to say that the candidate for President simply did not know the facts, and he got out and made the same statement that this good-for- nothing Senator did. He either doesn't know the facts, or he doesn't care for the truth, and I prefer to think that he doesn't know the facts. An uninformed President, fronting for the bigtime lobbyists who run the Republican Party, shouldn't be in the White House. That is the worst combination I can think of, but that is what they are trying to sell you this year. Don't you buy it. Don't you buy it. Don't you ruin yourselves. Don't put yourselves back where you were when they had an overwhelming majority in that Re- publican Congress that almost cut your throat and let you bleed to death. And that is what they will do again if you let them. The thing for you to do is to go out on election day and vote for yourselves and your interests. Don't vote for the lobbyists, be- cause they are not after your welfare. They are thinking of lining their own pockets at your expense. The Democratic Party has a record of service, and a forward-looking platform, and a candidate that people can trust. That is the combination to give you the kind of change that will help you to a better future. If you know what your interests are, you will go out there on November the 4th and you will go in that election booth and you will pick up a ticket and you will put an X up there for the head of the Democratic ticket, and you will put that in the ballot box, and you will go home and feel like you have done something for your country. Thank you very much. [6.] Devils Lake, North Dakota (Rear platform, 2:30 p.m.) I certainly appreciate that introduction, Senator Langer. You have been in the Sen- ate a long time, and you know the record, both mine and your own — they have been good, I'll say that, and compliment myself a little bit. I appreciate this welcome most highly. I am here as the head of the Democratic Party. You see, I have got five jobs, and I am work- ing at one of them now, as a politician. I am trying to inform the people what the Democratic Party stands for, what the Demo- cratic Party has done; and Governor Steven- son is going to tell you what the Democratic Party is going to do when he becomes President. And I am sure he is going to be President. I have been on the train today with the candidates for office in North Dakota, and I formed a very high idea of their fitness and ability. You can see that what happened just now couldn't happen in any other coun- try but this great America of ours, when op- posing candidates can ride on the same train and speak nicely of each other. Back at the last town a Democratic candidate for Sena- tor introduced Senator Langer; and Senator Langer now introduced the Democratic can- didate here. Where can you find anything like that outside of this great country of ours? You can't. And I want to see, of course, a Democratic ticket elected in North Dakota, and every- where else in the country. I want the Demo- cratic candidate for President and Vice Presi- dent elected, because I want to see the welfare of this country continued for another 4 years, and the only way you can get that continued is to elect Governor Stevenson as President and Senator Sparkman as Vice President of the United States. And I am sure that is what you are going to do, for they are two fine gentlemen. Now I have always been intrigued with Devils Lake. I had hoped sometime to get up here late in the evening and go out and see 608 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 29 [266] if I could see the devil that gives it its name. I understand that there is one there, and that people have seen him. In fact, I am told that a couple of Indians once sat on him, and one stuck a knife into him, and that is what brought him to life. I am going to be back here sometime and sit on the shore of that lake and see if I can see that devil for which it is named. I am also interested in a project down here in South Dakota on the Missouri River which contemplates raising the level of Devils Lake back to the point where it used to be in times gone by when it was a source of navigation to this part of the world. If — I say if — you will keep the Democrats in office, you will probably get that done. Otherwise you won't. I am also told that most of the storms that originate in the Missouri Valley come across the Canadian border right here. They start up at the mouth of the Mackenzie River and follow down the Mackenzie River and the Red River and then take you right on down to Missouri. I am a student of weather. And all the weather starts right here at Devils Lake. Goes all over the country. An interesting study. Sometimes you give us good weather, and sometimes you don't. I wish you would give us good weather all the time. I am asking you now, please give us good weather from now on. I understand that the Army comes up here to test their clothing every once in awhile. Sometimes, they tell me, in the wintertime it gets just as cold as it does anywhere else on earth. You know, the two coldest places in the world are landlocked places. One of them is Havre, Montana, and the other one is over in the center of Siberia. It gets colder there than it does at the North and South Poles. And that is saying a good deal. So I think I will confine my visits up here to the summertime. I don't like cold weather very well. I also remember 2 years ago we had to help you dig out of the snow and save your livestock. I was certainly glad that the Government was able to do that. I am always glad to see the Government help people do things they can't do for them- selves. That is what Government is for. And that is what the Democrats have been doing these past 20 years. The great Mis- souri basin project — Garrison Dam — and all the rest of it, that is a good example of what we have been doing. And I want to say to you that projects like the Garrison Dam, and Fort Peck Dam, and this Hungry Horse Dam that I am going out to dedicate day after tomorrow, are projects which are for the public welfare. They are for the wel- fare of all the people. You will find, if you will examine the record, that the majority of Republicans in Congress have opposed every one of them. We hope to find a way, as I said awhile ago, to bring some water up to this territory and help you with irrigation, and put some more land to work down south of us here. With irrigation we could develop thousands of acres of farms in this vicinity. We may even be able to find a way of putting that Devils Lake level up to the point where you would like to have it. I hope we can. But you won't get it if you elect a Republican Congress and a Republican President. You won't get anything. You will get just what you deserve. You know, the Republicans regard the Government as a device for milking the peo- ple, for the benefit of the big bankers, and the railroads, and the oil lobby, and the power lobby, and all the rest of them. You will find them in the corner of the special interests every single time the matter comes up for a vote in the Senate. That is what they believe. That is the way they operate. They ran this country right into the ground when they were last in power. They showed the same spirit in that 80th Congress. But luckily for you, and luckily for the country, we had a Demo- cratic President sitting in the White House that wouldn't let them get away with the murder they wanted to get away with. Now the Republicans in the Congress have been acting the same way that the 80th Con- 609 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents gress has, only they haven't been able to put it over. They are trying now to fool you into voting for them, so they can put over all these things that they couldn't get away with in the 80th Congress. Maybe you don't realize this, but 2 years ago 64 percent of the Republicans voted to cut all flood appropriations in half. And just last year the great majority of House Republicans tried to stop the Government from building transmission lines like the one which is going to bring Garrison power up here for your RE A cooperatives. If you vote these fellows in, you probably won't have any REA cooperatives. These votes are just typical. Of course, the Repub- licans want you to forget that. Don't you let them mislead you. You keep your eye on the ball. Keep your eye on your own interests, and let that pocketbook nerve of yours tell you what to do. When it comes down to voting, vote for yourselves, and vote not for the lobbies. Give yourselves a chance. Vote for Steven- son and Sparkman, and see that they get a real Democratic majority in Congress to back them up. Now the Republicans have a peculiar way of doing business. They are going around now telling you that they voted more money for the loans on the REA in the 80th Congress than I had asked for in the budget. But you know what they did? They voted that money all right, but when it came time to vote the operating expenses of REA, they didn't do a thing but cut off $700,000 of that appropriation and fixed it so that REA couldn't hire engineers to put these lines in. You know what they had for this part of the country? They left just one engineer for North and South Dakota and Minne- sota. And how in the world could he make those surveys? Well, the 8 1 st Democratic Congress remedied that, when we got back the power in Congress, and the REA got the necessary funds so it could operate. What's the use of voting a lot of money for loans and then cutting off the ability to make those loans? They will come out and tell you a whole lot of hooey like that, and if you examine the record, you will find that they ruined the thing every time they had an opportu- nity, but they did it in an underhanded way. They wanted to vote for appropriations, and vote for authorizations. Then when it came to the point of operating them, they fixed it so they couldn't be operated. They are doing that right along now, if they had the chance. And they will do it to you, if you vote them in. Now, in order to keep that thing from happening, get on your horse and go down to the polls on election day and vote for yourselves. Vote for your own interests. And when you do that, you can't vote any other way but for the Democratic ticket from top to bottom, and then you will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you a lot. [7.] Minot, North Dakota (Rear plat- form, 5:10 p.m.) It certainly is a privilege and a pleasure to be with you this afternoon. I was here in 1948, and had a meeting something like this. And I was highly complimented then, and I am more than highly com- plimented now to have all these people turn out for me when I am not even a candidate. I am here, though, in one of my five official capacities. I am the head of the Democratic Party as President of the United States, and I am out here for a purpose. I want to preach a little Democratic doctrine to you, and see if I can't get you in the frame of mind to elect Stevenson and Sparkman President and Vice President of the United States next November. Now I have been riding all day with your candidates: for Governor, Mr. Johnson, your candidate for Congressman at Large — who was just out here — Mr. Nesemeier, and your Democratic candidate for Senator, Mr. Mor- rison. I have been highly impressed with these gentlemen, and of course if you vote the straight Democratic ticket here in North 6l0 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] Dakota, I won't be disappointed, I can tell you that. Stevenson has made a great and progres- sive record as Governor of Illinois, a record of clean, efficient government for the people. And in this campaign he is talking sense to the American people. He is telling you where he stands on the real tough issues that are before us. He is a real friend of the common, everyday man, and not a front man for the special interests. And John Sparkman's record is just as good. He has always been a leader in the fight for your interests. These men you can trust to help you all the way. Now I am mighty glad to see how well you people are getting along here in North Dakota. I understand the Republican can- didate for President is saying the country is in terrible shape. He says the country is just going to the dogs as fast as it can go. But I have a paper here that is very inter- esting, and which I will tell you about in a minute. Twenty years ago North Dakota was flat broke, farmers were losing their shirts, bank failures and foreclosures all across the State. Today, this whole region is more prosperous than ever anybody thought it could be. Somebody sent me a copy of this "Fargo Forum" — I have it right here. And that headline up there says: "1951 North Dakota Farm Income the Third Highest on Rec- ord." That is after records were made in 1947 and 1948. The article says your cash income this year was $590 million, over and above what you consumed yourselves. And it says this figure was 97 percent above the 1937-1946 average. That doesn't look to me much like you are going to the dogs. That is not true just in North Dakota, either. The whole country is in the same shape. The country never was better off. We have an economy of 62 million jobs, $343 billion total national production and $288 billion national income. And these figures are growing all the time. In 1948 I made the prophecy that the national income would reach $300 billion within 10 years. Well, it's going to reach that $300 billion within a very short time now, far less than 10 years. And that is because the policy of the Democratic administration has been in the interests of all the people. Now, that kind of general prosperity is what gives you farmers the markets — the great markets. Last year consumers spent $448 per person on food. Contrast that with $245 in 1929, and then $174 in 1932. And those figures are adjusted for price changes. Those figures are parallel. Pros- perity has not come by accident. Your Gov- ernment has helped to make it happen. Take our farm programs for example. Price supports, farm credit and home loans, soil conservation districts, reclamation and irrigation, agricultural research — all these play a big part in building prosperity and a good living standard on the farm. And don't forget rural electrification — and rural telephones. In 1930 only 4 percent of the farms in Ward County were electrified. In 1950 the figure was 67 percent, and it is climbing. The Republicans have done everything they possibly can to sabotage the REA program. The Republicans are al- ways talking about socialism and regimen- tation. They use these words against all our farm programs. Well, the result of all this Democratic socialism is that here in Ward County farm ownership has shot up nearly 20 percent since 1930, and now over four-fifths of your farms belong to the farmers who work them. Those farmers here own three times as many tractors as they did 20 years ago. In fact, they didn't have money to buy tractors 20 years ago. Does that all sound like social- ism? Of course, the Republicans don't really believe it's socialism. They are just against these things, and they are afraid to say so directly. And the Republican Party has worked and fought against every good thing we have done for the farmer since 1933. If 6n [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents you don't believe it, all you have to do is look at their record. The record in the Congress is where it counts. Of course, you know about the record of that "do-nothing" 80th Congress that I had so much fun with in 1948. They tried to cripple rural electrification — ruin our power program. They even forced, that awful shortage of storage space for grain on us — the one their candidate says didn't happen. I just read the record of the Committee on Banking and Currency at the last stop, which stated specifically that the 81st Con- gress had amended the Commodity Credit Corporation and taken out the amendment which the 80th Congress put in there that prevented the farmer from having storage for his grain. They don't mind misrepre- senting the facts when they think it will get votes. You will find them talking out of both sides of their mouth all the time. They don't have any principles that they won't throw overboard if they think they can get the power. But I don't think they are going to fool anybody. But all this is only part of the story. Most of the Republicans in Congress are still just as bad as they were in the 80th Congress — they haven't changed a bit. Fifty-three percent of Republican Congressmen voted against the rural telephone program 3 years ago. An equal number voted against ex- tending price supports at 90 percent of parity. They did that just this last spring. If you want a good example of the Re- publican attitude on farm problems, take their Vice Presidential candidate. He has only been in Congress 6 years, but in that time he managed to vote seven times for crippling cuts in the REA and soil conserva- tion programs. You have been hearing a lot about his personal finances, but that is not half as strange a story as his voting record. You ought to look at the voting record, it's a peach from our standpoint. He has been against everything that is good for the people. Now that brings me down to the Republi- can candidate for President. I have known 6l2 him a long time. I have known him ever since he was a major in the Army. I have always been very fond of him. He was a great general. He did a wonderful service for the country in World War II. But he doesn't know the first principle about the program that is necessary to keep this coun- try running. He doesn't seem to be very fond of our REA. Just the other day, he got up at Omaha and said he would take the Government's "sticky fingers" off our rural cooperatives. Now that is just a plain insult, to cover up a bad intention. It's an insult to Claude Wickard and the whole REA — and it's an insult to the cooperatives, too. I think you are not being fooled by any such foolish talk as that. The Republican candidate has had some other things to say about the farm programs, too. Over in Minnesota the other day, he tried to make the farmers think that he would be for all the good things the Democrats have done. In fact, at that meet- ing, he got on the Democratic platform and tried to claim it. But he left himself an awful lot of holes to slip out of. I am going to say something more about that later on, which I think you will be interested in; that is, when I come back, maybe. Moreover, he doesn't seem to know what the Republican record is. Maybe he ought to read their platform, which promises to "aim" at parity for farmers "in the market- place." Now, I don't know what that means. I have never yet been able to figure out what "parity in the marketplace" is. It sounds an awful lot like two-bit wheat to me — sounds like 25 percent of parity. Now that candidate— fine man that he is — has got a lot to learn about this country — and about his party, too. But I don't think we can afford to educate him at public expense. The best thing for you to do is send him back to the Army where he belongs. I want you to remember this. The Old Guard Republican Party won't protect your interests. They don't care about them. They don't give a hoot about your interest. Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] What they are thinking about is feathering the pockets of the special interests with which they are connected. They have got more friends in more lobbies in Washington than all the Demo- crats put together. If they get into power, they will act just as they always have — and that will be the end of your great progress here in North Dakota. That is not the kind of change which you want, but that is the kind you will get if you elect a Republican ticket. From the Democrats you will get young, vigorous men, skilled in the task of good government, who will carry forward the kind of progress that you have been making for the last 20 years. Now, for your own interests, for your own welfare, for the goodness of your pocket- book, and for the goodness of your assets, and your bank accounts, it is to your interest to go to the polls in November and vote the Democratic ticket and keep the country safe for another 4 years. [8.] Berthold, North Dakota (Rear platform, 6:22 p.m.) I appreciate very much being able to be here today, and I want to thank you for coming out to meet me. That is a com- pliment to the President of the United States. You see, I am not running for office any more, but I am exercising one of my five jobs on this trip. I am acting in the capacity of the head of the Democratic Party, trying to convince the people of the country that it is to their best interests to vote the Democratic ticket. I have had a wonderful day. I have been associated with some of the candidates who are running for office here in North Dakota on the Democratic ticket, and they are won- derful people, and you can't make a mistake if you go to the polls and vote that ticket. And I hope very much to see the great State of North Dakota go for Stevenson and Sparkman. Stevenson has made a wonderful record as Governor of Illinois, and I know he will make a great President. He will fight for the plain people of this country, and he will see to it that this is the kind of country you want to live in and want your children to grow up in. The most important thing of all is that Governor Stevenson is a man of peace. You know, the President of the United States has the most important job in the world. He has more to do with whether or not we shall have peace in the world than any other individual. These are critical times we are going through, because the danger of Communist aggression threatens us with another world war. It will take all our wisdom and cour- age and patience, and a lot of hard work, to avoid an all-out war. And I can tell you that Governor Stevenson understands these things. If you have been listening to his speeches, you know that he has met the foreign policy issues frankly and honestly. He has not been hiding behind vague generalities. Nobody wants war, and the Republican candidate is no exception. I do not want war, either, but in this struggle for peace, we have to have more than good intentions. A military life is good training, but it is good training for war, and the preparation of war. It is not training in the ways of preventing war. That has always been the job of the civilian head of the Government of the United States. The President of the United States, in his capacity as Chief Executive, and in his capacity as Commander in Chief, makes the policies of the United States that can lead to either peace or war. And you want to be careful to get a man in that job whose thinking is the thinking of the people of the United States, and not a military mind. Since the General became a candidate for political office, he has been getting some strange advice on foreign policy. He has said some things about liberating foreign peoples that could get us into serious — very 613 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents serious trouble — if they were followed through to their logical conclusion. I am not altogether sure that he knew what he was saying — and that makes it worse. We cannot afford to have a Presi- dent who is careless about things like this. I have worked for peace for 7 long years. I want world peace above anything else on this earth. And I am sure that you feel the same way about it. No man can promise you peace with absolute certainty. But I believe with all my heart that our best chance for world peace lies with the election of Adlai Stevenson. So I say to you, for your own welfare here at home, for the good of your great State, and for the good of yourselves, and for the welfare of this great country of ours, you should go to the polls on election day, and vote the Democratic ticket, and you will have good government for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [9.] Stanley, North Dakota (Rear plat- form, 7:20 p.m.) I certainly appreciate that. It is fine to be here. I have had one of the most pleasant days I have ever had in my political life, and I have been at this for 40 years. People in North Dakota are certainly cordial and friendly and courteous to the President of the United States, and they have been just as fine as I could ask for. They have treated me just as if I were running for office myself. Now I am out now in my capacity as head of the Democratic Party, trying to convince you that the best thing for you and the best thing for the welfare of the country and the world is for you to vote the Democratic ticket this fall. I have had the pleasure of riding on the train all day witljpsome of the Democratic candidates on the ticket here in North Dakota. I have become acquainted with your candidate for Governor, your candidate for Congressman at Large — who was just introduced to you — and your can- didate for Senator; and I have known Bill Langer ever since I went to the Senate. I am very much encouraged by what I heard today concerning the prospects for the Democratic candidate for President in North Dakota. I know it has been a long time since North Dakota went Democratic at a presidential election, but I believe this is the year when it is going to take place. I sincerely hope that you will give a good big majority to Governor Stevenson. I am sure that is what you will do, if you have your best interests in mind. He will be one of this country's greatest Presidents, and he will see that the common, everyday man in this country gets a square break. And John Sparkman is the man to help him do it. You can be sure that you won't find him in the pocket of any special interests. You are at the beginning of a great new age here in this neighborhood. Your nat- ural resources are being developed, like your oilfields here, and the lignite deposits — and the power produced by Fort Peck and Gar- rison Dams. These things can bring about a great industrial and commercial development far beyond anything ever seen in this part of the country. Your Government is helping to make that possible, just as we have been helping to develop the whole country ever since 1933. We are helping by building dams and lines to transmit power to your cooperatives. We are helping by sound administration with your oil-bearing public lands, to benefit both the oil companies and the general public. And I want to call your attention to one thing in particular. If this situation had not been properly handled by the Govern- ment of the United States, the men who own these firms under which the oil is now being found would not have had them. Those firms would have been in the hands of the moneylenders, and they would have been in the hands of the insurance com- panies, and you would not have gotten a 614 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 29 [266] dime's worth of benefit out of it. But your Government came to your rescue and saved them for you. And another thing — the Coast and Geodetic Survey made a geological survey up here in this part of the world, and out- lined this structure and this oilfield that is now being brought into use. And that, by some people, is called Government inter- ference— Government boondoggling. And I am informed that it has exposed 2l/2 bil- lion barrels of oil — 2% billion barrels of oil; and in 2 or 3 years you will be produc- ing 200,000 barrels of oil a day in these fields. Now that's pretty good boondog- gling I would say, wouldn't you? We are helping with research projects to find out how your great lignite resources can best be used — projects like the new research laboratory at Grand Forks. We are helping, too, by all we have done to build up the general prosperity of the whole countryside — supporting farm prices, en- couraging REA cooperatives, opening up farm credit and home loans, and all the rest. We have put a floor under the econ- omy of this whole region, and for the whole United States as well. But if the national Republican Party wins this election, you had better look out — you had better look out. You can kiss your hopes for progress goodby. I know what I am talking about because I have studied their record in Congress, and I am urging you to study it, too. Just read the record, that's all you need to do. That record shows an overwhelming majority of Repub- licans in Congress almost always voting wrong — if the interests of the people are right, they vote against the people. Just 2 years ago, for instance, 64 percent of the Senate Republicans tried to cut out one half of all flood control work being done in this country. Just this year, practi- cally all the Republicans voted to give away the Nation's offshore oil — so the oil lobby could exploit it easier. Now there are 48 States in this great United States, and those whole 48 States have an interest in the offshore oil. Yet the Republicans in Congress wanted to give your interest here in North Dakota away. They almost did it, but I vetoed the bill, and I would do it again if it came up before me. The Supreme Court sustained the posi- tion which I have taken in that offshore oil, and it is a right position, because every bit of the country ought to share in that. That is just a small sample of their atti- tude. We have held them in check up to now, because when the Congress went wrong, we had a Democrat in the White House to fight for the welfare and the benefit of the people. And I tell you, I fought at every step of the way when they were trying to give the interests of the Gov- ernment away. But, just wait till you get a Republican in the White House to team up with the Republicans in Congress. If you let that happen, they will ruin you, sure enough. Now the head of the Republican ticket is going around standing on the Democratic platform on the farm program. But the Republican platform is not a platform that is in the interests of the people. I have found that these fellows will tell you any- thing in order to get votes. But I am urging you to read the record, and to study the Republican platform, and compare it with the platform of the party that has been doing things for the welfare of the people. And if you do that, you will vote for your own interests in November. You will go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and keep the country safe for another 4 years. Thank you. [10.] Tioga, North Dakota (Rear plat- form, 8:10 p.m., c.s.t.) Thank you very much for that cordial welcome. You know, I never was treated so well in my life as I have been today in North Dakota. I was just telling Bill Langer in here that I should have come out here earlier and filed for Governor. I be- lieve I could be elected. 615 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents It has been a great joy to me, meeting the good people I have met today, and I have been particularly pleased to meet your Dem- ocratic candidates for office here in North Dakota. I met your candidate for Governor and candidate for Senator, and the candidate for Congressman at Large, and became very well acquainted with them on the train all day today; and I don't think you will make any mistake by voting for them. I think they are all right. I know there is one way you can't make any mistake, and that is to vote for Steven- son and Sparkman, because you will be vot- ing for yourselves and your own interests when you do that. And I hope you will go to the polls and make it a point to study the situation. Read the record, and then make up your mind that the best thing you can do is to vote for yourselves — and when you do that you vote the Democratic ticket. These people running on that ticket are great men — they're all right. And I have been very much interested in learning about what has been happening recendy to this country up here. Whoever thought that North Dakota would have a booming oil town like this? You know, some time back, there was a time when if the United States Government had not come to the rescue of the farmers up in this part of the world, all this land that is underlaid with oil would now be in the hands of the moneylenders or the insur- ance companies. But the Government of the United States saved that land for the farmers, and the farmers now are reaping the benefit of that. That is one of the boon- doggles that these Republicans talk about, but I thought it was a pretty good boon- doggle, though. The Geodetic Survey made a survey — a geological survey and named this oil basin up here as a possible repository of oil. That was done at public and Government ex- pense, too, but it was done in the public interest. And I am told that this is an immensely rich pool up here, that it is esti- mated that there are 2% billion barrels of oil under it, as far as the explorations have come to date, that in a year or two you will be producing 200,000 barrels a day. And the returns from the land on those 200,000 barrels will go into the hands of the people who own the land— small farmers. That is what the Democratic Party stands for. That is a great development. It is going to mean a lot for the prosperity and growth of this whole region — provided we are not shoved into another Republican depression. I have been going across your State today, hammering home the point that the Repub- lican Old Guard is against you, the Repub- lican Old Guard is running this campaign for the Republicans. There has been a complete surrender to the Old Guard, and their record in Congress proves just exacdy what they are. If you want peace and security for this country, don't rely on them. If you want prosperity for the West, more electric power, flood control, social security, good education for the kids, don't count on them to help you to get it. Why if they have their way, they would give away your interest in the offshore oil that the United States Government owns. That has been established in the title to the United States by the Supreme Court of this great country. They would give it away if they could. I heard Harold Ickes testify before a committee down in the Congress that North Dakota's part of the return from that ofl- shore oil which belongs to the Government of the United States would amount to about $3 million a year. Now, 45 States in this Union have no borders on the seacoast, but they have an interest in that oil deposit, just the same as you have an interest in this one that underlies the land up here. And I don't want to give it away. The Demo- crats won't do it, but the Republicans have all voted to give it away, so we know where they stand. We have given you a fair deal, and we want to keep it up. Most of you are better off today than you ever were before in your 616 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] lives. There are 62 million, 300 thousand people with jobs in this country, and I can xemember back in 1932 when I was running Jackson County as presiding judge of that •county, which was an administrative office, there was something like 12 to 14 million people in this country walking the streets, not able to find jobs. And now the jobs are trying to find the people. There wasn't anybody brought that about but the Democratic administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. If you want to keep it that way, you had better go and vote for Stevenson and Spark- man, because they are standing on the Democratic platform which guarantees to the people their share in the Government. You are the Government. The people of the United States are the Government. If you turn this Government over to Old Guard Republicans, who have been tried, you will have the special interests at your throat, just like they were in 1932. And I am sure you don't want that to happen. And if you don't want it to happen, inform yourselves on what the facts are, and then go to the polls in November and vote for yourselves, vote for the welfare of this great country. Vote the Democratic ticket — and you will be all right. [11.] Williston, North Dakota (Rear platform, 8:15 p.m., m.s.t.) I can't tell you how much I appreciate that introduction from my friend Mr. Bur- dick. He and I, you know, have a common interest. We are both very much interested in the history and the growth of the West. The Congressman has one of the greatest libraries on that subject in this whole United States. I don't think there's but one other that has as many books and as many vol- umes on the development of the West as has Congressman Burdick and that is the University of Oklahoma. He and I ex- change books, and we always try to find out who can tell the tallest tale about the West. He has had the best of me so far on that order. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the welcome I have had today in North Dakota. It has just been exactly like this from one end of the State to the other. In every city where I have stopped today, it seemed to me that everybody for a hundred miles around had turned out. And I know that is the case here tonight. On my trip across the State today, I have had a chance to get acquainted with the candidates for office. Some of them are Re- publicans and some of them are Democrats. If I was in North Dakota — of course, having been raised a Democrat, I would vote for the Democratic ticket. But I want to say to you that these two Republicans that are friends of mine here in North Dakota, are mighty fine men, and I like them both very much. I would hate to vote against them. In fact, I don't — I don't have to make a decision. I told Bill Langer today, if I had known how well the people of North Dakota felt about me, I would have come out here and filed for Governor. Getting down, though, to dead earnest- ness and brass tacks, it is to your interests in this coming election to send Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman to the White House. Now I have been in the White House for almost 8 years — it will be on the 20th of January, lacking a month and a half — and it has been my privilege and my duty to make some of the most earth-shaking deci- sions that any President of the United States ever had to make. I have never hesitated to make those decisions, and I have tried my best to do it in a manner which I thought was right for the welfare of the country. And I am just as sure as I stand here that Adlai Stevenson will do the job in the same way. He will make these decisions which the President has to make. He will make those decisions in a manner that he believes will be for the best interests of the country, and I think they will be for the best interests of the country where he makes them. 617 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents If you have heard Governor Stevenson speak, you will know he really has your in- terests at heart. And he has proved that by his clean, progressive record in the great State of Illinois. As Governor he has had a lot of experience in the Government. He understands the foreign policy of the United States. He understands the domestic policy of the United States. And I am just as sure as I stand here that he will make one of the best Presidents this country has ever had. And his running mate is just as good a man. I have known them both for years and years, and they are both fine men, and I hope you will vote for them. I well remember stopping here 2 years ago, on my way back from Grand Coulee. Then I was out making a personal report to the people on what their Government was doing. I talked to you then about power developments here, and reclamation and the great progress of the West. This was a very prosperous country then, and I was proud of that because Democratic administrations had done so much to make it prosperous. Since 1950 we have carried through a huge defense mobilization pro- gram, and we have done that without up- setting our economy, or wrecking the living standards of the people. At this point, I want to explain to you that I am out here in one of my five posi- tions. The President has five different jobs, each one of which is enough for one man to do, but the President, under the Constitu- tion of the United States, has to do all five of them. I am here tonight as the head of the Democratic Party of the United States. The President is always the head of the party when he is in the White House. And I am here tonight, as the Congressman suspected, to talk politics to you, pure, plain, and simple — not here under any false pretenses. The Democratic Committee is responsible for my being here. They asked me to make this trip to explain the Government as it has been carried on by me as President of the United States — Democratic President of the United States, if you please. That is what I am trying to do. That is what I am going to do and I hope that when I have finished, and have told you what the record of the Democratic Party has been in office, and when Stevenson tells you what he hopes to do as President of the United States, you can't help but vote the Democratic ticket. Most people are as well off — or better — than they were before we threw this strain on our economy. I am proud of that, too. It shows you what a great, solid, expanding economy we have built up in America since we took over the mess the Republicans left us in 1933. We have done something else I am proud of. We have kept this country out of world war III. I have spent my whole time, my whole 7 years, as President of the United States in a most sincere effort to keep the peace of the world, and to make the world a peaceable place where there never will be another world war. I am here to tell you that a world war now would be of such tremendously destructive effect, that there would be no civilization left after the war was over. I don't want to see another war. I am doing everything I possibly can to prevent another war from coming again. I know that is what Adlai Stevenson will do. And I am not saying that the other side wants war. I don't think General Eisenhower wants a war. He has fought in two world wars. He knows what it means for a man to go to the front and get killed. But when it comes to the point of either freedom or fight, it has been the policy of the American people to fight for their freedom, and they always will do that. Now then, there has been a lot of talk about Korea. Korea is being fought to prevent a third world war. The price has been high, but it has saved us from that all- out war. And I would never minimize the cost of Korea. I am very deeply conscious of it. But never let anyone tell you that the Korean episode has been a useless one. Korea is a landmark — a great victory in 618 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 29 [266] our fight for peace. For there we have stopped the Communists. We have upset their timetable, and we have pushed them back, and we have surely saved the world from total war. Now these things have been possible in spite of the Old Guard Republicans in the Congress, and not because of them. Their record in Congress shows you where they stand, and what they have done. They haven't helped build prosperity — a lot of them are still voting against the farm pro- grams, against power, against reclamation, against conservation. They have been against every measure that has built up the West. They haven't helped the defense effort. A lot of them have fought against price controls, time after time — and rent controls, and defense housing. They have tried to get tax relief for the rich and all kinds of special benefits for every special interest. Those Old Guard Republicans haven't helped much in Korea, either. Most of them have voted against military aid and economic aid to Korea before the invasion. That is what gave the Com- munists their signal to advance. Then, later on, they tried to start an all-out war with China. Of course, they were backing a different general then. When he got here, though, they didn't think so much of him as before. That is the party that wants you to let them have national leadership. They want you to change the leadership, but they have done nothing to earn that trust, and if you are minded to forget that, remember the last time they held power in 1932. And remember their record in the 80th Congress, with which I had so much fun in 1948. I told you all about the 80th Congress, and you believed me. I told you the truth. I want you to believe me this time, for I am telling you the truth right now. And I know more about the world situation and the situation with which this Government is faced than any other man in this country; and I am not bragging when I say that. The record of these Old Guard Republi- cans is just as bad as it can be. They are still voting against you. They are trying to hide their record behind a general. Now, look out. Look out, as I said awhile ago. He has got a sign on his car that says "Look Ahead Neighbor." And I have changed that slogan to "Look out Neighbor," because they are after you. You had better look out. We haven't had much luck with Republi- can generals in the past. I can't think of a worse combination than a professional mili- tary man, fronting for the power lobby, fronting for the real estate lobby, fronting for the railroad lobby — with their fine dis- criminatory freight rates, and all the rest of that crew. If the Republicans should win this elec- tion, I would be terribly afraid of what would happen to the domestic economy. I would be even more afraid of what would happen to our chances for peace. I have worked for peace above everything else, ever since I have been in the White House, as I said awhile ago, and I shall keep on working for peace as long as I live. My career is not going to stop when I get out of office. I am going to be just as hard a worker for the welfare of the American peo- ple as I have been for the past 40 years. And I have had every award that a man in politics can possibly have, and I am grateful for it. You won't find me going out to tear the country apart. I am going to try to make it better than it is now. I think we are facing the greatest age in the history of the world. I wish I was 18 instead of 68. The threat of Communist imperialism has made the path to peace extremely diffi- cult. We have made great progress up to now, by joining our strength with the strength of the other free nations. But the way is long and hard. It calls for patience. It calls for steady nerves. It calls for keen minds, and it calls for plain, simple hon- esty— the most valuable thing in the world. Peace will not be won by anyone who 619 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents puts victory in an election ahead of the safety of the country. It will not be won by bellicose chest thumping on one day, followed the next day by a promise to cut down the funds needed to defend this coun- try if war should come. I think, my friends, that it has already been made perfecdy plain in this campaign which one of the candidates for President best understands the dread issues of war and peace. It has also been made perfectly plain which of them has the courage and the moral fiber to do what is right — even though it be hard, even though it be unpopular. And that man is Adlai Stevenson. Governor Stevenson is the candidate who is talking sense to us — appealing to the best in us — challenging all America to rise to greatness. His opponent seeks to win by stirring up the passions of the crowd — drag- ging us down toward the gutter. The choice is clear. Adlai Stevenson is the only candidate we can afford to trust with the future of this country. And I want to say to you that you are the Government. The people of the United States are the Government of the United States. And when you go to the polls to vote, you are voting for your own welfare, and for the welfare of this great Nation of ours. You are voting for your pocketbook, which is the most touchy nerve on a man or a woman. And I want to say to you, you want to examine the record, you want to remember what these people say they are for; and then you want to remember to look out for your- selves. Don't take what is said about it. Get the facts and then sit down and weigh them. And when you go to the polls you can't do anything else but vote for your best interests, and that is vote the Democratic ticket on November the 4th. Thank you very much. [12.] Grand Forks, North Dakota (Recorded interview, broadcast 9:15 p.m., see Item 267) [13.] Wolf Point, Montana (Rear plat- form, 10:50 p.m., m.s.t.) First, I want to say to you that I have had a great day today. North Dakota turned out just as if I were running for President. This is a fine start on Montana too, and I am more than happy to make the start this early in the morning — for tomorrow. The reason I am here I suppose you are familiar with. I am in one of my five capacities tonight as the head of the Demo- cratic Party, and I am out campaigning in that capacity for the Democratic ticket. You have some fine candidates here in Montana. For Senator, my good friend Mike Mansfield — you couldn't find a better man than Mike. He has done a wonderful job in Congress for you and for me and for the whole country. And you have Willard Fraser for Congress. You could count on him to work for you and not for the special interests. And for Governor you certainly will reelect John Bonner. There is another ticket in which I am very, very much interested, and that ticket is headed by Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Stevenson is the most promis- ing young leader to emerge in this country since Franklin Roosevelt. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Stevenson has been Governor of one of our greatest States, and he has made a fine record in Illinois. He has shown himself to be a real friend of the everyday man, and not a stooge for Wall Street and the reactionaries. John Sparkman is the same sort of fellow. He is a man that has made a fine record fighting for the interest of all the people. Since this is my first stop in Montana, I am going to tell you just what I have been telling the people all across North Dakota. This is a most important election for you. The Republican Old Guard is out to grab control of this country, and they don't care how they get it. But they know exactly what they want to do if they do get it. They want to use our Government to 620 Harry S. Truman 1952 Sept. 29 [266] plunder the common people, for the benefit of the same old special interests they have been serving as long as I can remember. I am told the Republican candidate for President has a sign on the back of his train which says "Look Ahead Neighbor." Now, that's pretty corny — like the confetti they hand out at every stop. I can suggest a slogan that fits them a lot better. The sign ought to say "Look Out Neighbor." That means you. That means you. Look out — for they aim to get you if they can. They are going to ruin you, and the whole country, if you put them in power. If you don't know what I mean, just look at the record, that terrible Republican record in Congress. That record proves they are against you. It shows they vote against your interests every chance they get. That's what they did in the 80th Congress, and that is what they have been doing ever since. And you can bet it's what they will do if you let them grab the Congress along with the White House. The only thing that kept the 80th Con- gress from running off with the whole coun- try and giving it away was because I was in the White House and they couldn't get away with it. Now, you take rural electrification — you are all interested in that — one of the best programs the Democratic Party ever put across. Well, you know how the Repub- licans have acted. Back in that 80th Con- gress they voted four and five to one to cut the funds for REA. We only saved the program because there was an even bigger ratio of Democrats who voted right. But they did hamstring it the best they could. When it came time to vote for funds for the administration of REA, Senator Bridges, that great statesman from New Hampshire, got an amendment through to the appropri- ation bill, cutting $700,000 off the admin- istrative funds for the REA. That cut down the engineering force — in fact, you only had one engineer for Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota and the eastern part of Montana, and it iust was not possible to get the loans written because the surveys had to be made by the engineer. As soon as the Democrats got back in control with the 8 1 st Congress, why everything has been going all right ever since. In 1949 a good majority of Republican Congressmen voted against our rural tele- phone programs. It's the same story every- where you look. Consider your irrigation and power out here. If the Republicans had had their way, you would still be scratching dry dirt and using kerosene lamps. Mike Mansfield and Jim Murray are the ones who fought those projects through for you. If you will send Mike to the Senate, with Murray, then Montana will be one of the best represented States in the Union. I want to tell you a story about that United States Senate. It is just as inter- esting as it can be. The press gallery boys — there are about 50 or 60 of them in the Senate press gallery. After a session of Congress has ended — that is, a 2-year session of Congress, which is elected for 2 years — they usually take a vote on who is the best Senator and who is the worst one. Well, way back in 1943, when they took a vote, there was a certain junior Senator from Missouri that got in the class of the best ones. Well, this time they were taking a vote, these press gallery boys, and every- body was voting for McCarthy, of course. But one man who represents the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in the press gallery said out of State pride that he voted for Kem, the Missouri Senator, as the worst Senator in the Senate. Now I don't have any ambition to see Montana have anything but the best that's in the Senate, and with Jim Murray and Mike Mansfield that's what you will have. You vote for yourselves, now. When you vote the Democratic ticket that is what you are doing, you are voting for your own interests because the Democrats look after the interests of the everyday man and the common people. They have done that ever since I can remember, and I have been in 621 [266] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents politics 40 years. And that's a long time. I have been in public office — elective office for 30 years and that is one of the reasons I thought it was about time for me to back out of this business and go out and do a few things I want to do on my own, without having somebody throwing bricks and mud at me all the time. They have never been able to hit me, I will tell you that. The best thing you can do for your own interest is to go out on election day and vote the Democratic ticket and make the country safe for the people for another 4 years. Thank you very much. note: In the course of his remarks on September 29 the President referred to, among others, Orville Freeman, Democratic candidate for Governor, Wil- liam E. Carlson, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Curtiss Olson, Democratic candidate for Repre- sentative, all of Minnesota; Vice President Alben W. Barkley; and Edward Nesemeier, Democratic can- didate for Representative, Senator William Langer, Republican candidate for reelection, Ole C. Johnson, Democratic candidate for Governor, Harold A. Morrison, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Representative Usher L. Burdick, Republican can- didate for reelection, all of North Dakota. He also referred to Representative Mike Mansfield, Demo- cratic candidate for Senator, Willard E. Fraser, Democratic candidate for Representative, Governor John W. Bonner, Democratic candidate for reelec- tion, and Senator James E. Murray, all of Montana; Claude R. Wickard, Rural Electrification Adminis- trator; and Harold Ickes, former Secretary of the Interior. 267 A Recorded Interview With the President. September 29, 1952 [ Broadcast from Grand Forks, North Dakota, at 9: 15 p.m. ] interviewer. Mr. President, in an election year, there are always many questions that the American people would like to ask in order to clarify their thinking about basic political issues. One of the big issues this year, as always, is Democratic versus Repub- lican farm policy. We have chosen a num- ber of the most important questions bearing on the agricultural issue with the thought that the people of North Dakota would ap- preciate hearing your views. Q. The first question is: Do you think the Midwest farm vote this year will go Demo- cratic or Republican? the president. I understand that the poll- takers aren't having much luck in getting farmers to say how they are planning to vote. Incidentally, that's a repetition of 1948 and maybe it's a good sign for the Democrats. Now, I'm neither a poll-taker nor a prophet. But I don't see that there's anything in the Democratic record on agriculture of the past 4 years that should cause farmers to turn away from the party if they voted Demo- cratic in 1948. And I can't find anything in the Repub- lican record on agriculture — either in the 622 past 4 years or in the past 30 years — that would invite farm people to vote Republican. I suppose I'm a little prejudiced; never- theless I can't recall a platform in recent years that had a better farm plank than this year's Democratic platform — and I can't think of one that ever had a worse farm plank than you'll find in this year's Repub- lican platform. It's so bad that the Republican candidate tried to cover it up the first chance he had. In fact the Republican candidate is trying now to stand on the Democratic platform. Under those circumstances, why should any farmer who voted Democratic 4 years ago, change over now? I might point out that the election was very close here in North Dakota in 1948. A switch of 10,000 votes would have put this State in the Democratic column, where it ought always to have been. Q. Mr. President, there have been charges that you fooled the farmer in 1948 by saying that the 80th Congress prevented the Commodity Credit Corporation from providing grain storage. Would you com- ment on that? Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 29 [267] the president. I certainly will. The charge is just plain bunk and originated in a damn lie in a speech made on the floor of the Senate. Now where did this phony charge come from? The first time I heard it, it came from the lips of Tom Dewey — the man behind the general at the Chicago conven- tion. And when did he make the charge? In 1948? In 1949? In 1950? In 1951? No, he didn't make it until this year — nearly 4 years after this terrible thing was supposed to have happened. Since when do farmers need to have their thinking done for them by a city Republi- can— and 4 years late at that? Incidentally, this charge has been an- swered point by point by the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Brannan. I said in 1948 that the 80th Congress stuck a pitchfork in the farmer's back by crippling the grain storage program. I say it again right now. And I say, further, that the Republicans in the 81st and 82d Con- gresses tried to pitchfork the farmer over and over again. They tried to pitchfork you by voting against REA and the agri- cultural conservation program. They tried to pitchfork you by levying crippling taxes against co-ops and by wrecking crop insur- ance. They didn't get away with any of these things — but they sure did try. Q. Mr. President, what is the difference between the Democratic and Republican position on price supports? the president. There's just one reason why that's a hard question to answer. The reason is that nobody knows what the Republican position on price supports really is. They have at least four positions. There's the position of the 80th Congress. They voted a sliding scale with the lower level of support at 60 percent of parity. Why, even in 1932 farm prices averaged about 60 percent of parity. Then there's the position taken by the Republican platform. It says, "We favor a farm program aimed at full parity prices for all farm products in the marketplace." Get that last phrase — in the mar\etplace. Now what do those words mean? They mean that the Republicans will be very happy to see farmers get fair prices — if prices happen to be fair. If they don't happen to be fair — well, prosperity is just around the corner. They don't say that it may take 10 years to turn that corner. That's exactly the kind of farm program under which one farmer out of four went broke between 1920 and 1932. The Republican platform says, "Our pro- gram should include commodity loans on all nonperishable products supported" — now note this — "supported at the level necessary to maintain a balanced production." What does that mean? It means that commodity loans should not be used to help farmers receive fair prices — but primarily to balance production. In other words, if a commodity loan at 25 percent of parity will help balance production — by starving half the wheat growers out of farming — then the loan level should be 25 percent of parity. I haven't read such a silly statement in a farm plank since 1932 — when the Republicans said that, under their administrations — and now I quote their words — "the position of agriculture was gradually improved." Now I'll tell you about perishables. The Republican platform says, "Where Govern- ment action on perishable commodities is desirable, we recommend locally controlled marketing agreements and other voluntary methods." Surely, they know better than that. We already have marketing agreements in op- eration. They help, but they don't do the whole job that's needed. How could you use marketing agreements, for example, to support prices of hogs or eggs ? Then, there's the position of the Republi- can candidate. He walks the farm plank — right off the end of it and into the deep water. He says he's for the present legisla- tion providing supports at 90 percent of parity on basic commodities through 1954. He even tries to make out that the Republi- cans favored this extension of supports. 623 [267] Sept. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents Now the fact is that 53 percent of House Republicans were against it — and were re- corded that way on the vote. And Senator Taft says that if he had been there he'd have voted against it, too. And Senator Taft is General Eisenhower's principal ad- viser now. The Republican candidate also says that a way must be found to protect prices of perishables. But his running mate — the junior partner on the ticket — is on record as voting against supports on perishables. So there you have the Republican Party — split at least four ways. You have the posi- tion of the presidential candidate — then the contrary position of the vice-presidential candidate — then the position of the plat- form— and finally the position of the 80th Congress. Now as to the Democratic position on price supports, that's easy. There's only one position, and that is stated clearly in our farm plank. Here it is. "We will con- tinue to protect the producers of basic agri- cultural commodities under terms of a man- datory price support program at not less than go percent of parity. We continue to advo- cate practical methods for extending support to other storables and to the producers of perishable commodities which account for three-fourths of all farm income." Q. Mr. President, the Republicans have charged that agricultural research has been neglected under the Democratic administra- tion. Is that correct? the president. That's ridiculous, and I'll tell you why. A man-hour of farm labor today produces 75 percent more food and fiber than it produced 20 years ago. Crop yields per acre have gone up nine times as fast in the last 20 years as they went up in the 20 years before that. Those gains could not have been made without the wonderful research accomplish- ments of the Department of Agriculture and the State experiment stations. Back in 1938 we passed legislation author- izing the four big regional research labo- ratories of the Department of Agriculture. But what did the Republicans do? They were so enthusiastic about research they voted against it 5 to 1. Q. Mr. President, out here on the north- ern Great Plains, we're subject to extreme and uncertain weather. Is crop insurance an issue in this election? the president. It certainly is, and the Republicans have fought it every inch of the way. I'm very proud of the crop insurance program that has been developed under Democratic leadership since 1938. It was a brand new field — one that private enter- prise couldn't handle. But we made a start at that time. The job of providing local leadership and know- how was farmed out to the farmer-elected county and community committeemen in every corner of the land. And it's paid off. Today, the Federal crop insurance pro- gram is still operated by those same farmer- elected committeemen. It's helping stabi- lize farm income in 868 counties in 43 States. But let me say that the Republicans voted 16 to 1 to kill it back in 1943. Only last year they voted 2 to 1 to cripple the crop insurance program. But crop insurance and research and price supports aren't all that the Republicans are against. Take rural electrification, for in- stance. Today nearly 9 out of every 10 farms in the country have powerline elec- tricity, compared with 1 out of 10 in 1935. This great gain has been made in spite of the Republicans in Congress, who have ganged up against REA on almost every vote. You know, the Republican candidate for President has been claiming credit because the 80th Congress provided $800 million in REA loan funds. But what he didn't tell you is, that on vote after vote the Republicans tried to beat down the appropri- ation. On one issue, House Republicans voted 180 to 12 against REA funds. On another, they voted 205 to 31 against REA 624 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Sept. 29 [267] funds. On another they voted 152 to 41 against REA funds. On still another they voted 151 to 51 against REA. If the Republicans want to be honest, let them admit that the $800 million voted for REA in the 80th Congress was voted by Democrats over Republican opposition that ran as high as 15 to 1. Q. Mr. President, the Republican can- didate has been saying that present farm programs were developed on a bipartisan basis. As a final question, what's your comment on that? the president. Oh, that is a fake, too — just like all the other Republican claims are a fake. The facts are that a majority of Republicans have opposed farm legislation not only recently, but for 30 years. Back in 1922, President Harding told farmers they had to help themselves, and the other Republicans evidendy agreed be- cause they kept blocking and vetoing the McNary-Haugen bills and voting against operation of Muscle Shoals for power de- velopment and conservation all through the 1920's. Here's a quick rundown of the Republican record on farm legislation for the past 20 years. In 1933, House Republicans voted against the Agricultural Adjustment Act — in a ratio of nearly 2 to 1. That same year, they voted against the TVA— nearly 8 to 1. In 1936, they voted against the Soil Con- servation and Domestic Allotment Act — 3 to 1. In 1938, they voted against the Triple-A, which is still our basic price support legis- lation— 5 to 1. In 1939, they voted against parity pay- ments— 7 to 1. In 1943, they voted to kill crop insur- ance— 1 6 to 1. That same year, they voted against expanding rural electric power facilities — 3 to 1. In 1947, they voted to kill the farm owner- ship program — 8 to 1. That same year they voted to kill the agri- cultural conservation program — 12 to 1. In 1948, they voted to cripple the grain storage program — and they succeeded until the Democratic 81st Congress rescinded this action. In 1949, a majority of House Republicans voted against the rural telephone program — and they called it socialistic and a threat to free enterprise. That same year, they voted against price supports on perishables — 40 to 1. In 1 95 1, they voted to cripple crop in- surance— 2 to 1. That same year they voted against ex- panding rural electric power — 9 to 1 — and they also voted to cripple the conservation program. And only last July, a majority of House Republicans voted against the amendment assuring price supports at 90 percent of par- ity for 1953 and 1954. With such a record, how in heaven's name can the Republican Party claim credit for the farm programs we have today? It reminds me of the flea that was on the back of a donkey crossing a bridge. When they got across, the flea said to the donkey, "Boy, we sure did shake that bridge, didn't we?" note: The interview with the President by Jack French was recorded aboard the President's railroad car en route from Fargo to Grand Forks, N. Dak., for broadcast over radio station KNOX in Grand Forks and over the Great Northern Broadcasting System. 625 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents 268 Rear Platform Remarks in Montana. September 30, 1952 [1.] Wolf Point, Montana (Rear plat- form, 7 a.m.) I am more than happy to see that so many people in Montana get up before breakfast. Now back East we have an awful time getting people up in time to eat breakfast, let alone getting up before breakfast. I was glad to see Mike up in time. I think Mike has learned, as I did, that there are more votes to be gotten as the sun comes up than there are when it goes down, especially in this part of the world. It has been a pleasure for me to enter Montana last night — had a wonderful crowd of people out here to welcome the train, and I appreciate it most highly; and I am more than happy that all of you turned out this morning to see me off on what I hope will be a successful whistlestop trip across the great State of Montana with my good friend Mike Mansfield here, who is one of the best public servants that I know in Washington. He has done a wonderful job in that position. And if you put him in the Senate, you will have wonderful representa- tion in Washington. Now, there are some States that don't have such wonderful representation, as I told the people last night. Sometimes they take a vote in the Senate press gallery as to who is the best Senator and who is the worst. With Mike Mansfield and Jim Murray there, it will be a contest to see who is the best Senator. And I hope Montana will do its duty. Vote for your own interests, and vote the Democratic ticket straight on November the 4th. I hope to see you again sometime when I am not running for office, or working for somebody running for office. [2.] Glasgow, Montana (Rear platform, 8:15 a.m.) It is not very often that the President rates two bands in one morning. That was wonderfully done. I appreciate very much this welcome this early in the morning from the great State of Montana. I came into Wolf Point last night, and there were 500 or 600 people on the platform. When I got up to leave this morning, there were 700 or 800 there to see me off and wish me well. And I certainly appreciate that. I remember stopping here in 1950. I had just come from seeing Fort Peck Dam, the greatest earth dam in the world. I had a good time on that trip, and I am certainly having a good time now. And I am here in one of my five official capacities, as the head of the Democratic Party. I am on a campaign trip to tell you the truth about what the issues in this campaign are, and to bring to light some of the misrepresenta- tions that have been made by the opposi- tion— and I am not wasting any words on it, either. Now you have a wonderful ticket here in Montana. You have just had them all introduced to you. When you have a ticket like that, you can't help but do the country good when you vote the Democratic ticket. I have known Mike Mansfield — well, I don't know how many years, as long as he has been in Congress. And he is one of the best that has ever been in that Con- gress. He has done more for the State of Montana than any other Congressman that has ever come from this State. And you have Mr. Fraser, who will do the things for Montana just as Mike has done. He impresses me as being a good man. And I know your Governor very well. He is a great person, and if you don't send him back, why you will lose by it. Of course, I served in the Senate with Jim Murray. He got in just a few days before I did, and always had precedence 626 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 30 [268] over me — had protocol over me; but I cured that. Jim Murray has been a good Senator. He has been for the interests of the people, and he has always been fighting for the welfare of Montana. He told me awhile ago he wanted me to remark that he wanted to run for reelection in 1954; and if he does, I am for him. But the national ticket is the thing that I am out here to talk to you about. Adlai Stevenson is talking sense to the American people. He has a healthy respect for the people, and he cares about your interests and your future. That certainly is proved by his fine record as Governor of Illinois. And John Sparkman is the same kind of man — his whole career in Congress has been spent fighting for the things the plain people of this country want and need. Ask Mike Mansfield about John Sparkman, he can tell you just the sort of person he is. Before I go further, I want to say how sorry I was to hear of all your troubles in the flood last year. But I am told things are pretty well back to normal now. I am glad we were able to give you some emer- gency help from Washington. And in the next few years I hope we can do a lot more for flood control work and soil conservation, and give you permanent protection. But I am here to tell you if you elect a Republican Congress and a Republican President, you won't get it, and you won't deserve it. I am always glad to see our Government helping people do things they couldn't get done by themselves. That's what the Gov- ernment is for. And that is what your Democratic administrations have been doing these 20 years — helping the people of this country to make things better for them- selves. That is point 4 working at home. Take our farm programs. They are a good example. We have worked to build up the land through soil conservation, reclamation, and irrigation projects like the ones you have here. We have worked to bring electric power to the farm, at reason- able rates, through the REA and your fine cooperatives. That is one of the best pro- grams the Government ever started. And do you know it had to be fought through? It had vicious Republican oppo- sition. We have worked to make sure the farmers could count on fair prices for their crops and really good living on a family- sized farm. That is what makes Charlie Brannan one of the greatest Secretaries of Agriculture we have ever had. He is for the family-sized farm. That is what he has been working for ever since he has been Secretary of Agriculture. Now, all these things are doing a lot of good. They are good for the farmers, and farm prosperity is good for everybody. I am sure you know that here in Glasgow. But you will never keep these things if the Republicans grab the White House and the Congress in November. If that happens, this country is in for a bad time. You had better make up your minds to that. I am not exaggerating. I know it is true, because I am very familiar with the Repub- lican record in Congress. And, my friends, their record is terrible. All you have got to do is to read it. Their record is so bad that it is hard to believe, but if you just look at the facts, as I have done, you can see for yourselves. It's all down in black and white, but it's mostly fine print, and it's hard to read. That's the reason I am bringing it to your attention. You ought to read that fine print in the Congressional Record — then you will know just exactly what these birds will do to you if they get in there. Now, my Republican friends don't want you to find that out, so they try to distract you by heaping abuse on the Democrats. And just in case that doesn't convince you, they resort to downright untruths and false- hoods about what actually happened in the past. They just rewrite the record to suit themselves. They think you won't read that fine print, but I am urging you to do it. They think if they tell you a false story often enough, you will get confused about what really happened, and come to believe their version of it. Don't you do that. You will 627 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents be believing something that is absolutely contrary to your own interests. I want to tell you about some of these Republican attempts to rewrite the record. First let us take the story on REA appro- priations back in that terrible 80th Congress which I talked to you about in 1948. The Republicans had control of that Congress. They came out and showed you just exactly what they would do if they had the power. If you hadn't had a man in the White House to head them off, they would have ruined you. Now, the Republican candidate for Presi- dent had the nerve to stand up at Omaha, the other day, and say that the 80th Congress had gladly appropriated $800 million for REA, and that proved the Republicans just loved rural electrification. But what he didn't say was this: there were four record votes on funds for REA during the life of that Congress, and every single time, the Republicans in both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly to slash the funds. The only reason REA got that $800 mil- lion was that practically every Democratic Member of Congress voted for it. And there were a handful of friendly Republicans that voted to put it over. Yet the Republican candidate wants you to believe the Republican Party favored REA 4 years ago. That is what I mean when I tell you to read the record. In addition to that, you know the operation of that $800 million fund had to have an administrative setup; that is, it had to have engineers and clerks and surveyors and things to see that the lines went in as they should go. What did the Republicans do? That great statesman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bridges, got an amendment to the appropriations bill which cut $700,000 off the administrative fund of REA, and that meant that whole survey crowd, engineers and everybody else in connection with it, had to be thrown out. I think there were some 2,500 employees of REA taken off the payroll — the men who actually put REA into effect. They fixed it so that one en- gineer had to look after Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota, and the eastern half of Montana, and he just simply couldn't do it. And so while they say they appropri- ated f 800 million, they fixed it so it couldn't be spent. That's the way they do a lot of things. They make you believe that they have done a lot for you. Now here's another — the story on that terrible shortage of grain storage back in 1948, when the 80th Congress stopped the Commodity Credit Corporation from pro- viding storage space for farmers. And that amendment to the Commodity Credit Corporation to prevent storage space for farmers was put through by men who are interested in grain storage in private busi- ness. The Republican candidate made a speech at Kasson, Minnesota, and said that the 80th Congress did not prevent the CCC from providing storage space for grain. Furthermore, he said there was no shortage of storage back in 1948. And finally, he said the CCC did not provide storage space, anyway. Now let me tell you the truth. In the first place, I have on the train here the official report of a committee of the House of Representatives in the 80th Congress in 1949. This report concerned a bill to restore to the CCC the powers that the Republican candidate says were never taken away. This was the 81st Congress, not the 80th. The 81st — the one after the 80th. And this report says flatly that there had been a bad shortage of storage space in 1948, and it says that the 80th Congress had helped to cause the shortage by stopping the CCC from providing storage space. Now, why a candidate for President would get up and misrepresent the facts in a manner like that is more than I can tell. He must have been sure that I didn't know the record, and I was there when it was made. There's the record — and I don't recall that any Republican raised a voice against 628 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 30 [268] this report, and didn't deny it on the floor of the House. Now, one thing more. The Democratic 81st Congress gave the Commodity Credit Corporation its powers back again. And since that time, the CCC has been steadily leasing storage to farmers. Moreover, since 1949 the Government has loaned farmers more than $35 million to build extra storage space for themselves. All that, of course, is storage which the Republican candidate said did not exist and was not needed. And here are two specific cases where Republi- cans are trying to confuse you on the facts, and I can tell you about a lot of others. I am sorry to say it's their candidate for President himself who is doing this. He is acting no better than the rest of them. In fact, I think he believes everything that the old-line looking-backward Republicans tell him, and then he gets up on the platform and says it. Either he doesn't know what has been going on in this country — and in his adopted party — or he doesn't care. But regardless of his motives, you must not let him fool you. Now I like Ike. I see signs all around at some of our meetings "I like Ike." And I like Ike, too, but I like Ike as the com- mander in chief of the Armed Forces in France, but I don't like him for President. I don't see how you people can afford to take a risk with a man like that — or with a party like that. You can't put your future in the hands of men who won't tell you the truth. You can't trust a party that has always been against you. Think of your own interests. Think what will happen if they get control of the Gov- ernment. Think — just think what would happen to the soil conservation, to flood control, and to all the rest of the things for which the Democratic Party has stood over the last 20 years, and which the Democratic Party has put into effect. Now they are saying that everything we have done is wrong. My friends, if every- 55-672—66- -43 thing we have done is wrong, the country never was in better shape than it is now, and I am here to tell you if you want to turn the clock back and suffer a little while, you will get it if you turn this Government over to them. I want you to go to the polls on No- vember the 4th and exercise your right and prerogatives of the Government of the United States, because the people of the United States are the Government. I want you to go there and vote for yourselves and vote for the welfare of this great Nation of ours, and vote for the welfare and the peace of this world by voting the Democratic ticket. Then we will have 4 more years with the country safe and the world at peace. [3.] Malta, Montana (Rear platform, 10 a.m.) Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General, for that introduction. I appreciate it. I am also highly complimented and highly pleased to see this turnout here this morning. You know, coming across North Dakota, and coming into Montana, the people were just as cordial and fine to me as they possibly can be; and from the way they turned out, they seemed to be inter- ested in what I had to say. You would think I was running for election. It is easy to see that you people here in Malta are on your toes. I am glad to know that you have made a good recovery from the floods which hit here in the spring. That was a terrible disaster. I am glad we were able to give you some emergency help from Washington. I guess you all are acquainted with the fact as to why I am here. You see, the President has four or five jobs centered in the one man. I am working at one of those jobs now across the State of Montana, as the head of the party which is in control of the Government. The President of the United States is always the head of his party. I am out here this time, frankly, campaigning as the head of the Democratic 629 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents Party, trying to convince you that the Democratic ticket is the proper one to put in office again. You have one wonderful man running for Senator in this State, the Honorable Mike Mansfield. I have known Mike ever since I have been in the Congress — or ever since he has been there, and he has been a real public servant. He understands the needs of the people. He not only under- stands them but he works for them. And if you send him there to join with Jim Murray — who is one of the most able and distinguished Senators in the United States Senate — Montana will be as well represented in the Senate as any other State in the Union. And it is to your interest to be that way. I have just become acquainted with Willard Fraser, the candidate for Congress in this district, and I hope you will send Mr. Fraser to the Congress to carry on where Mike will have left off in the House of Representatives to go to the Senate. I am very much pleased to have the Governor of the great State of Montana as my guest this morning on this train, and I know very well you are going to send him back to the capital of Montana to run the State. He has done a good job at it. Back in 1948, you people stood by me when the big interests were saying the Republicans had the election in the bag. I remember one pollster in that campaign decided that he wouldn't take any more polls after September 9. He said the elec- tion was over and there was no use going to the expense — all we need do is inaugurate Mr. Dewey. Well, it didn't come out quite that way, if you remember. You people believed with me that I would be elected. And I appreciate it very much. We licked the big interests in 1948, and we will lick them if we stand together as we have all the time. 1952 is a key year in the welfare of this country and the welfare of the world. And if you do your duty, the country will be in safe hands for another 4 years. And that duty is to vote the Demo- cratic ticket. I am glad you are going to stand up and be counted this year for two of the greatest candidates the Democratic Party has ever had: Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman — both wonderful men. Mr. Stevenson has been one of the great Governors of one of the great States in the Union. He understands administration. He understands how to run the Government. And you will make no mistake if you put him in there. Here in the area around Malta, you people are getting a lot of benefits from the Milk River irrigation project, so I am told. And you are going to get a lot more from the new improvements that Congress has authorized. You can thank Mike Mansfield for that, and for a lot of other things which have helped you people and your State. Just about 3 months ago I signed a bill which Mike sponsored to make it easier for the average farmer to pay for irrigation works on this Milk River project. That bill also provided for nearly a million dollars in Federal help to put the works in first- class shape. That's what Mike Mansfield and the Democratic Party have been doing all along — helping the average person in this county to get the things he needs that he can't manage by himself. In my opinion, that is what the Government is for. The Republicans don't believe in helping the people of this country. They don't care about the development and prosperity of Montana. Their record in Congress is cer- tainly proof of that. They are against just about everything you people out here want and need. And that situation is not con- fined to Montana. The Republicans are against everything that will help the com- mon everyday man. They are for the spe- cial interests, and they don't make any bones about it. They seem to want to turn the clock back to William McKinley and the robber barons. 630 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 30 [268] In 1948 you didn't fall for their line, and I know you are not going to fall for it this year, either. I think the name of your town is a very good symbol of your determination to stand for what is right. I understand that Malta was named for that island in the Mediter- ranean Sea. I am sure you all know the story of how that island of Malta took some of the heaviest blows from air bombard- ments during the Second World War. But the people carried on — they weren't scared and they weren't fooled into surrender. I hope you will resist the Republican blows, and blowhards — particularly the blowhards — and the hot air bombardments in the same way. The Republicans are out to cut off the common people from their Government, just like the enemy tried to cut off Malta during the war. Now, it's up to you to keep that from happening. You have got to get out and vote for the party that always works for you — that always works for the people. I am talking from historical facts. If you read the record you will find that all the good things that have come to your great State have been sponsored and put through during Democratic administrations. You will find the Republicans trying to claim credit for those things, but if you will read the record, you will find that it points ex- actly the other way. You see, that record comes out in the Congressional Record, as I said awhile ago, and it's mostly fine print and people don't like to read fine print. I am asking you and praying with you that you will read the fine print and under- stand just exactly what is needed to keep this country great. That's the reason I am out here. You don't suppose I would be going up and down the United States from one end to the other and to all the cross ways except that the people need convincing on what is in their own interests. When you vote in November you are voting for yourselves. And if you vote for yourselves, you can't do anything else but send Stevenson and Sparkman to the White House, and elect a Democratic ticket in Montana. Do that — and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [4.] Chinook, Montana (Rear platform, 11:10 a.m.) Well, I certainly appreciate that welcome. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. You know, I have got a warm spot in my heart for this town of Chinook. It went for me in 1948 about two to one; of course I can't forget that as long as I live. I understand that Chinook means "warm wind" to melt the snow and ice in January and February and save the cattle. You know what I wish? I wish we could get a Chinook wind into the Republican Party. You know why I wish that? It would melt the ice around the Republican hearts and get them to show some warmth toward the common people. I don't think we can expect that very soon because the reactionary Old Guard still calls the tune for the Republican Party. Don't let them tell you anything else, and if you will analyze what they say and what they do, you will see I am telling you the truth; the lies are all on the other side. Here in Montana, and everywhere in this country, the Democratic Party has a lot of warmth and interest in the farmer, the small businessman, and the plain people. That is why I hope you will elect Willard Fraser to the House of Representatives, reelect Governor John Bonner, and send Mike Mansfield to the Senate. I want to say a special word about my good friend Mike. When I spoke here in Montana 2 years ago, I said that most Republicans could look and look at an acorn and all they could see were the little old acorns. But people like Mike Mansfield, with vision for the future, can see that acorn 631 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents as a giant oak tree. So I say as I did 2 years ago, don't vote for the little men with acorn minds, but vote for the people like Mike Mansfield who have the broad vision to carry us forward to peace and prosperity. When you send Mike to the Senate, you will have two Senators then of which Montana can be exceedingly proud. Mon- tana will then have two of the best Senators in the United States Senate. I want to thank you for the big majority you gave me here in 1948. As I said awhile ago, this year I am not out campaigning for myself, but I am campaigning for some of the finest candidates the Democratic Party and the country ever had a chance to vote for — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. You know, the President has five immense jobs for which he is responsible, any one of which is an alltime chore for any one man, but he has to do all five of them the best he can. In the first place, he is the Chief Executive of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. In the next place, he is the Com- mander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and he is the only head of a state that has a Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, except a few of the republics that have been organized since the United States Government was set up. He is also the head of his party, and that is the job I am working at today, the head of the Democratic Party. The President in the White House is the top man in his party, and he can't help it, he has to take respon- sibility for the party, he has to try to see that that party does what is right by the people. And the President makes the foreign policy of the United States. He is respon- sible for the foreign policy; in fact, he is the foreign service man for the whole country. Therefore, in that capacity he has to know something about what goes on in the world. Then he has the job as social head of state. He has to entertain all the visiting firemen. When the kings and queens and presidents come to our country, he has to see that they go back with a good feeling about this country and tell their people what a great country this is. Now with his five jobs and 17 hours a day the President can't get the job done, but I am working specifically at my job this time as head of the Democratic Party. I want you to know just what the Democratic Party stands for, and in this capacity I am going across the country and back; and when I get through you will have the truth, and then you can use your own judgment. These men I have been talking about stand for prosperity and progress in Mon- tana and everywhere in this country. They also stand for peace in the world, and they know that the way to peace is through care- ful, steady effort to strengthen the forces of freedom. These men don't believe in talk- ing tough one day, and cutting our Armed Forces the next day. That is the Republi- can way — and I hope we never get stuck with it. The Democratic Party for 20 years has been working for all the people of this country — the farmer, the businessman, the worker, and everyone in the country. We don't play to any special interest. I am just as anxious to be fair to the big bankers and the big man in business as I am to be fair to the man who is not in big business. And I want to say to you that there are lobbies galore in Washington — the power lobby, the real estate lobby — you can't count them on the fingers of both hands. But the only lobby and the only lobbyist that the common everyday man has — the 150 million people who don't have any lobby — is the President of the United States; and when he goes back on you then you are in a bad fix, sure enough. Now we have achieved the greatest pros- perity this country and the world has ever seen. And we have done it by seeing that 632 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 30 [268] every interest in the country has a fair and square deal; and we will keep that prosperity and improve on it, if we all keep working together as we have done in the past 20 years. Now the Republicans have opposed all the great progressive measures that have given us strength and prosperity. They said those things were wrong — bad for the people, too expensive, and socialistic. They especially don't like what we have done out here in the West. And they seem to think that prog- ress just isn't good for you. You know, when this 49th parallel was laid out, it was in the administration of Millard Fillmore, and there was a great fight on about 54-40. And do you know who was Secretary of State for Millard Fill- more? His name was Daniel Webster. And he and Lord Ashburton got together and decided that this part of the world wasn't any good anyway and they split the difference, and ran the 49th parallel all the way down to the Pacific Ocean. But there were a lot of people in the coun- try who decided that this part of the world was just as great and can have just as great potentialities as any other section of the country; and I am one of them. These people especially don't like what we have done for you out here. And their five-star candidate talks the same line as all the rest of them. The Democratic Party believes that the great rivers of the West should be assets, not liabilities. We believe the rivers should be harnessed to prevent floods, to produce electricity, and irrigate farm land. You know, you people know about these things. You know you can use your Gov- ernment to better your own welfare. I think you want to keep that kind of govern- ment that understands all these things. And if you do want to keep that kind of government, you want to inform yourselves as to the facts. If you will do that, I have no fear that on election day you will go down there and vote for yourselves and your interests and for the welfare of this great country, and vote the Democratic ticket, and then the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [5.] Havre, Montana (Rear platform, 11:55 a.m.) I am certainly enjoying this trip through the northern part of Montana. I don't think I have had such a good time since 1948. I know very well I haven't because then I had to work too hard. This is a vacation for me. I am working at my job as head of the Democratic Party. I am trying to explain to all the people, and when I get through I think they will understand that the Democratic Party is the party of the people, and that is the party you ought to stick to. It is good to be back in Havre again. The last time I was here you were having a music festival, and I greatly enjoyed those wonderful high school bands. They tell me at the Weather Bureau that Havre is one of the coldest places in the world, but I want to say this: you have given me one of the warmest welcomes. You also gave me one of the largest majorities — better than two to one, I believe it was — that I received in the 1948 election from the whole State of Montana. I want to say to you that you have better judgment than some of the newspapers and the pollsters. You went along with the winner. Now I want to thank you for that, and I am going to ask you to do the same thing, or even better, for Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, who will be one of the country's greatest Presidents, I am sure of that. He has everything that is required for the Presidency. It is just as if he had been trained for the job. He has had govern- ment experience in the field of agriculture. He has held important jobs in national defense and foreign affairs. He has been one of the most economical, most honest, and most successful Governors that any of 633 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents our great States ever had. Personally, he has courage and humility, and he has always been on the side of the people. I hope you will send Mike Mansfield to the United States Senate to work with Jim Murray. Over in this part of Montana, you haven't had the chance to vote for Mike before, but I want to assure you that he is one of the ablest men in the House of Representatives, and that he has earned your vote for United States Senator. Mike Mansfield is a credit to Montana, and to the whole United States. He has a record to be proud of. I don't know anyone who has worked harder for the welfare of the people of his State than he has. He is more responsible than any other man for Hungry Horse Dam, which I am going to dedicate tomorrow, and for a lot of other great projects which are going to make Montana more prosperous and an even better State to live in than it is now. Mike has worked just as hard for projects in this part of the State as he has for projects in his own district. One of the things he has worked the hardest for is the transmis- sion line from Havre to Shelby. You all know how that fight came out. In spite of the Republican 80th Congress, and in spite of all the mossback Republicans in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, we got that line through. But Mike has done much more than to represent Montana in Washington. He has represented the United States before the whole world. Last year, I appointed him to the United States delegation to the United Nations. I never made a better choice. In the debates in Paris he stood right up to Russia's Vishinsky and slugged it out with him and beat down a Russian attack on the foreign policy of the United States. That debate won respect for Mike Mansfield all over the world. Mike has always known that communism is dangerous and that we have to take measures to stop it. Governor Stevenson has been the same way. Back in 1945 and 1946 Governor Stevenson carried out some important missions for us in Eu- 634 rope. He saw what the Communists were up to, and while he worked mightily for international cooperation, he was one of the first to warn that the Russians were becom- ing a threat to peace. I don't remember that the Republican Party had any such wisdom or foresight. If they had, they didn't tell me about it. Neither did the man who is now the Re- publican candidate for President. After the war, while he was still the commanding general of our forces in Europe, he said that he saw no reason why Russia and the United States would not remain the closest possible friends. I am going to quote him: "There is no one thing," he said, "that guides the policy of Russia more today than to keep friend- ship with the United States." Those are the exact quotes he used before a committee of the Congress in November 1945. Now, my friends, his foresight was not nearly so good as his hindsight is. You know, when I was going to school, we had an old professor who was interested in teaching us how to make up our minds and make decisions. The lesson was on the history of battles of the War Between the States, and discussion was on the Battle of Gettysburg. And some kid in the class got up and said what Lee should have done and what Meade should have done, and this old professor said, "Now, young man, that's all very fine, but any schoolboy's hindsight is worth a great deal more than all General Lee's and General Meade's foresight." I can say the same thing about Ike. His hindsight may be extra good, but his fore- sight isn't any better than anybody else's. Of course, we can all make mistakes, but the Republican candidate was then com- manding general in Europe, and he was in close contact with the Russians. His advice carried great weight and it therefore did a great deal of harm. Perhaps if he had given us better advice in 1945, we wouldn't have had so much trouble ' in waking up the country to the danger of Communist im- perialism in 1946, 1947, and 1948. Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 30 [268] It is true that we were all trying immedi- ately after the war to find a means for living with the Russians on a peaceful basis. I don't blame the Republican candidate for his part in that. But he ought to be honest enough to admit that he made "blunders" the same as everybody else did, and admit them frankly and freely; and also admit that he was perfectly willing to get on the bandwagon on my policy in trying to meet the situation. I get very tired of all the Republican speeches and all their propaganda saying that the Republican Party has been out in front against the danger of communism. That just isn't so. If they were out in front, I couldn't see them, and I was right at the head of the army. The Republican Party was asleep at the switch when the Communists first began to threaten our security in Europe and in Asia. It took all I could do, and all the Democrats could do, with the assistance of Senator Vandenberg and a few intelligent Repub- licans, to wake the Republican Party up to the necessity of taking sufficient measures against communism. The Old Guard Re- publicans in Congress were the leaders in the clamor for demobilizing our Armed Forces after the close of the war. Through all of 1946 and 1947 and 1948 they were dragging their feet. They were voting to cut military and economic aid to our foreign allies. And as recently as last summer, they were voting to cut appropri- ations which we need to make our defenses strong. The Republican Party is just as backward in foreign policy as it is on domestic policy. And that's saying a lot. It is just as care- less about our national security as about our national welfare. This year, however, they have unlimited supplies of money and they are trying to flood the country with propaganda to make you think the Republican Party stands for national defense and national security — and that the Democratic Party doesn't. It is a complete distortion of the facts. Worse than that, it is a trap, and I want to tell you exactly what I mean by that. I will have to go back a little bit in history. The basic issue between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party is the same today as it has always been. It is the issue between liberal policies and reactionary policies. It is the issue between the party which believes the people come first — the Demo- cratic Party — that wants to help the people in their daily lives; and the party that believes that big business comes first — the Republican Party — that wants to help the special privilege groups at the expense of all the people. That was the issue I explained to you in 1948. The Democratic Party went before the people in 1948 with a liberal program. We explained what we wanted to do for the people. And after we were elected, we went ahead to do those things for the people. In the 8 1 st Congress we had a good solid Democratic majority and we set out to do the things we had promised. We expanded social security, and we improved the mini- mum wage law. We improved health and housing measures, and we went ahead with our progressive farm policies. Most im- portant of all, we stopped this Nation from sliding into a recession in 1949. We kept prosperity. For the first time in history, we did not have a postwar depression. At the same time, we were fighting against the threat of communism. We were build- ing up the nations of Europe and Asia against the Communist threat. We were working out firm alliances and firm de- fenses to hold the Communists in check. All this time, the Republicans were follow- ing a policy of obstruction. They were try- ing to sabotage our great development proj- ects like the ones you have here in Montana. They were trying to weaken our farm price support program. They were trying to keep us from improving social security and pro- tecting the rights of labor. They were try- ing to block everything the majority of the people voted for in 1948. 635 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents In 1950 the Republicans saw their big chance. It was in that year that the Com- munists launched their brutal invasion of Korea. We moved in to stop it, for the sake of our own national security and to preserve the freedom of the world. We knew we could not wait while the attack spread and dragged the whole world into a war — a war which would be atomic this time, with the bombs falling on America. So we moved in and stopped the Communists in Korea. This cost us money and effort, and worst of all, the lives of many of our finest young men. But it checked the plans of the Com- munists and the Kremlin for world con- quest, and blocked their conspiracy against this country. The sacrifices of our men in Korea have protected this country against one of the gravest dangers that ever threat- ened it. The Republicans decided, however, that regardless of the threat to our country, they could make a lot of votes out of the hard- ships and the losses of our action in Korea and its cost to us. They went around the country trying to spread alarm and panic, misrepresenting the facts and stirring up resentment. And they succeeded in fright- ening a lot of timid people. They elected more Republicans to the 82d Congress in November 1950 than there were in the 81st Congress. They did not obtain control of the 82d Congress but they got enough Republicans in there to block prog- ress. That was what they wanted most. Their increased voting strength in Congress enabled them, with the aid of a few Demo- crats, to succeed in their obstructionist efforts. They were able to block further progress in such fields as better health and better hous- ing. They tried to undermine the protec- tions we had set up for the average citizen in this time of defense mobilization. They weakened our controls over prices, pushing the cost of living up. They tried to do away with rent control. They worked to leave big loopholes in the tax laws so the rich could make more money. They tried to put the burden of the defense program on the little fellow, instead of mak- ing each man carry his fair share in accord- ance with his ability to pay. Now, in this election year, they believe that they have a chance to finish the job. If they can elect a Republican President and a Republican Congress, they will finally have the average citizen at the mercy of the special interests and that's exacdy what they want. And they believe that they can win this election by stepping up their campaign of misrepresentation, distrust, fear, and panic that they started in 1950. So they are going around the country again, and they are wringing their hands and they say our foreign policy is a failure, saying that our defense of Korea is useless, saying that our defenses are either unneces- sary or too expensive, saying that your Gov- ernment is corrupt and incompetent and dis- loyal. They are engaging in the greatest smear campaign this year that we have ever seen in American politics. And I have been in American politics 40 years and I have been through some tough, rough campaigns; but I have never yet faced a campaign that the other side based on lies and slander. And before I get through, they will wish they hadn't done so. Now, what is the purpose of all this? Is it to give us better defenses ? Certainly not. They have been voting to hold down our defense effort. Is it to give us stronger allies in the fight against communism? It most certainly is not. They have been voting against meas- ures to make our allies stronger ever since I started to help to make them stronger. Is it to give us a better and stronger for- eign policy? It most certainly is not. They haven't had a single constructive idea about foreign policy since Senator Vandenberg died. Is it to give us stronger internal defenses against the Communists? No, it certainly is not. We were engaged in crushing the Communist conspiracy in this country long 636 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 30 [268] before the Republican orators tried to make votes out of it. Is it the purpose of the Republican smear campaign to give us a cleaner, more efficient government? Obviously not. They have been voting for tax loopholes, for special favors to big business, and against most of the reorganization plans I have sent to the Congress to make our Government cleaner and better. I wish you would read the record on that. I have sent more reorganization plans to the Congress than all the rest of the Presidents put together. I have had reorganization plan after reorganization plan knocked out by the Republicans and a few renegade Democrats. No, my friends, the real reason for this Republican attack, for this campaign of fear and distrust, is that they want to take your Government away from you. They want to scare you and fool you into voting for them, so that they can again control the United States as they did in 1932. They want to get back in power and get their hands into our resources and the develop- ment of this country. They want to get back in power so they can make this country the happy hunting ground that it was for the millionaires, so that the farmer and the workingman can be left out in the cold again, like they were back in the twenties and the early thirties. My friends, that is their objective, and that is what I want to explain to you as I go along on this trip through this great and wonderful country of ours. I want to ex- plain to you, just as I did in 1948, that your interests are in danger. And I want to ask you now, as I did then, to vote for yourselves, to look at the welfare of this Nation as a whole, to look at our position as the greatest leader of the world in the history of the world, to do what is necessary to keep the peace in the world, which I have been fighting for for 7 years. And if you go to the polls in November and vote the Democratic ticket, you will vote to keep this country safe for another 4 years. [6.] Tiber Dam, Montana (Address at the dam site, 2:20 p.m., see Item 269) [7.] Shelby, Montana (Rear platform, 4:25 p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this most cordial reception. I want to say to you that Mon- tana has been exceedingly cordial to me today. In fact, there have been more people out to see me when I am not running for office than were out to see me when I was. I don't know whether that has any signifi- cance or not. I am certainly enjoying this trip through Montana and I am sure you all know why I am here. I am campaigning for the Demo- cratic ticket. That is one of my full-time jobs as President, to act as the leader of his party. I have really enjoyed seeing the good Democrats who are running for election here in Montana. I have had a most pleasant day with your great Governor, John Bonner, and I hope you will send him back as Gov- ernor of Montana, and I am sure you will, because he has done a good job. Your can- didate for Congress is a wonderful man. I have become very well acquainted with him on the train here today, and I feel sure that if you send him to Congress for this dis- trict, you will have service instead of promises. Mike Mansfield is one of the ablest men in the Congress, and I am sure you are going to send him to the Senate, and if you do, with Mike Mansfield and Jim Murray as your representatives in the Senate, Montana will be one of the best-represented States in that great body. I am very anxious to have you vote for Adlai Stevenson for President next Novem- ber, just like you did for me in 1948. Adlai Stevenson has made a great record as Gov- ernor of Illinois, and that is the finest kind of training for the office of President. We have a fine vice-presidential candi- date in John Sparkman. He has one of the greatest progressive records in the Congress. 55-672— 66- 637 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents He is a grand man. And with Stevenson and Sparkman in the offices of President and Vice President, you will find that the coun- try will continue on the same good road it has been following for the last 4 years. There is one thing I want to do on this trip and that is to make sure that you people are not fooled by all the false stories the Re- publicans are spreading around this country. I have taken up a lot of these phony stories since I have been on this trip, but I want to talk to you about one I haven't mentioned up to now. That is the one about how another depression is inevitable. I am told the Republicans are trying to make people believe the only thing that holds up our economy is the defense effort. They say we wouldn't have prosperity to- day if it weren't for military spending. They want you to believe everything is as shaky as can be. They want you to believe that everything is as shaky as the Republican plat- form, and that's about the most shaky thing I know about. Now let me tell you something. All this talk about a proposed depression is just plain hooey. It isn't so. The prosperity that we are now enjoying is very sound and very healthy. Right now we have a total national production of over $340 billion — this year. The defense program is taking less — less than one-sixth of our total output. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for the defense effort, we would be even more prosperous than we are now, and not less prosperous. The defense effort is making us hold back on a lot of things we need — things to make our country even greater than it is now. Let me give you some examples. We need more power — more water on the land. That calls for a lot more dams like Hun- gry Horse here in the West — and more transmission lines. We need more and better roads all over the country. We need new schools and homes and hospitals and health centers in almost every town in the Nation. We are going to need more food for our growing population — and more consumers of goods of every kind. Thousands of businesses have plans to bring their factories up to date and expand them to meet these new demands. Now I was just here awhile ago and turned the first spade of dirt with a ton of dyna- mite at this Tiber Dam on the Marias River. It is going to bring in 127,000 acres for pro- duction, which is an asset to the Nation. It is not a liability. And there are hundreds of things like that that we could do. As soon as we can ease off on defense, all this civilian work will be there waiting to be done. Maybe defense spending can be cut some day to a lot less than it is now — I hope so, that is what we are all working for — but there are plenty of civilian needs to more than take its place. That means there need be no depression in this country. And there won't be, if you have a govern- ment in Washington that understands these things and will help you to start on new production when the right time comes. The Democratic Party can give you the right kind of government. That is the rea- son I want you to vote the Democratic ticket. Now that has been proved. We got you out of the great depression 20 years ago, and we kept you out of a depression after World War II. That is the first time in history this country has kept out of a depression after a war. And I might remind you, Korea had nothing to do with it. We were already well past the danger period and booming along before June 1950. But the Republicans are quite right to tell you there could be a depression. Yes, there could be a depression — perhaps there will be — if they get control of this country. And I don't want them to have it, because I don't want you to have a depression. They just don't believe in doing the things we need to keep this country growing. They got us into the last depression 20 years ago, and there is no sign they wouldn't do it again if they had the chance. 638 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 30 [268] Just a few years ago the Republican Con- gressmen voted almost two to one against the Full Employment Act. Now I wouldn't count on their candi- date for President to make them behave. You see, he is a military man. He has been in the Army ever since he was 18 years old. He has been in the habit of saying, "You do this." And it's done. "You do that." And it's done. He doesn't understand that the office of President of the United States is a public relations office, and the President spends most of his time persuading people to do what they ought to do without being persuaded. A military man hasn't got that kind of dis- position, I can tell you that. He doesn't know a single thing about the economy of the country. He has been living an Army life for 40 years, and all the Army knows — and I spent some time in the Army, and I know what they think — all the Army knows is how much can we get to spend. And anyway, he has surrendered, lock, stock, and barrel to the Republican reaction- aries— Taft and all the rest, and they have got him well under control. I can't think of a worse combination than an uninformed military man fronting for the big lobbies — which really run the Republican Party. And before I get through with this trip, I will take them one at a time and prove it to you — that they run the Republican Party all the time, from the China lobby to the lobby on oil. That kind of combination can lead us down the road to ruin — and in all probability would. My friends, you are not helpless in this situation. You can protect yourself if you want to. And the way to do that is just to keep those Republicans out of office, and you will be all right. Think of your own interests, and vote for yourselves. You are the Government. The people of the United States are the Govern- ment of the United States. The power under the Constitution of the United States rests with the people, and when they exercise their rights and vote as they should, they are safe. Now, it is your duty as a citizen to go to the polls in November and vote for your own interests and for the welfare of this great Nation. And if you do that, the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [8.] Cut Bank, Montana (Rear platform, 5:30 p.m.) Well, thank you very much — thank you very much for that wonderful and enthusias- tic welcome. You know, I have heard a great deal about this town. There are a great many stories about it, what a wonderful place it is, but they tell me that it is most famous for that wonderful high school choir over there. We have a choir of the same sort in the First Baptist Church in Washington, and I am sure they can't sing as well as this one. I hope I will get an opportunity to hear you sing. I have an idea that there is a suspicion afloat around somewhere that I am cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket. Well, that is my privilege. You see, the President of the United States is the head of his party, and the Democratic Party is in control of the Congress and the White House. So it is my privilege to go around and report to the people of the United States just what the Democratic Party has done during the 7 years that I have been President. And it is the privilege of the Democratic candidate for President, who is now running for that office, to go around and tell you what he proposes to do to continue that situation. I have been through North Dakota and Montana yesterday and today, and I have had a most pleasant time. I am here to tell you that I didn't have any such crowds when I was trying to get elected. And I am not running for anything. I have had a very pleasant time today with your Governor, the Honorable John Bonner, who has made a great Governor of this great State, and I 639 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents have deemed it a privilege to be associated with him on this trip across Montana. I was with him many times before, and from what I have heard, he has made you a great Governor, and you ought to put him back. I have also had a chance to get acquainted with Mr. Fraser, who is running for the Congress in the eastern district of Montana, which they tell me is the biggest district in area in the whole United States — covers more territory, nearly, than the State of Missouri. And that's saying a lot. I don't admit that anything covers more territory than the State of Missouri, not at the present time, at any rate. But I hope you will send Mr. Fraser to Congress, because I think it will be to your interests to do it. You need a Democratic Congressman here to help you get some things that you ought to have had a long time ago. If you had a Congressman like Mike Mansfield — and they tell me Wil- lard Fraser is the same kind of fellow — you would have had a lot of things that you haven't now, I am sure of that. Of course you are going to send Mike Mansfield to the Senate, and if you do that, you will have two of the best Senators in the Senate of the United States — Mike Mans- field and Jim Murray. It will be an honor- able representation for this great State, and a help to the United States Government. Now then, to cap that off, you must elect a Democratic President for the next 4 years. Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman are running for President and Vice President. Mr. Stevenson is the best new leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt back in 1932. Like Roosevelt, he has been a fine Gov- ernor of one of our greatest States — and he has proved himself to be an able, honest, and efficient administrator. In this campaign, Governor Stevenson is talking sense to the American people. And that's a lot more than you can say for the Republican candidate, I'll tell you. For 2 days now I have been telling the people some plain facts about the issues in- volved in this election that affect them very personally. That's what I am going to do here today. I am going to talk about the subject of health — your health — the medical care you need, and the doctors' bills you have to pay. First, I want to read you something that was said by a woman many of you may know — Mildred K. Stoltz of Sunburst, Mon- tana. She went to Minneapolis a few weeks ago to testify before the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, and this is what she said: "Thousands of families pray daily that they may go through life without any of the major calamities of sick- ness, accidents, and untimely deaths happen- ing to them. They are so vulnerable, they are so unprepared, that a major accident will wipe out the savings they have accu- mulated over long years of work." Now this is a copy of that hearing that was held in Minneapolis, an exact transcript of what I have been quoting to you. And it's printed at Minneapolis, Minnesota, on September 2d, 1952, and it's available so you can see that the quotes I am making from it are the exact truth. And they fit the situation, because I am told that this lady knows what she is talking about. Those words express exactly what the problem is, not only in Montana but in most parts of the country. Now, the question is, what are we going to do about it? Ever since I took office, the Democratic administration has been trying to get some- thing done about it. And nobody has worked harder in the cause than your own Jim Murray. I want to tell you it has been a battle every step of the way. We have had to fight the pullbacks and the mossbacks, and all the other kinds of "backs," and all the people who are against any kind of progress at all. But we have made some progress in spite of them. For one thing, we have started a program of Federal aid to help build hos- 640 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 30 [268] pitals. That's how you got your own hos- pital here in Cut Bank. And I want you to know that I am mighty glad you have it. And another thing that has been done is to add an Indian wing to the State Tubercu- losis Hospital at Galen, Montana. Mike Mansfield got a bill through Congress for that purpose. You know, Mike works hard for the Indians just like he does for all the people of Montana. Under the Mansfield bill, the Federal Gov- ernment appropriated %il/i million to build that wing on the State hospital. Then Mon- tana, under a Democratic State administra- tion, matched those funds, and this addition to the Galen hospital is now completed and in operation. It is a credit to the great State of Montana. That just shows you that the Democratic Party is interested in looking after the health and welfare of the American people. But we could have done a lot more than we have done to improve the health of the people of the United States. Now, who stopped us? Why the Republicans in Con- gress, of course — the same crowd that is al- ways against every progressive measure that is in the interest of the people. Let me tell you something about their rec- ord. They say in their platform that they are for aid to hospitals and medical research and improved health services, but their vot- ing record proves just the opposite. They talk one way, and they act another. Now let me give you some examples. In 1947 the Senate Republicans voted better than 4 to 1 to cut down our research on cancer. In 1950, 58 percent of the Republican Con- gressmen voted against expanding our hos- pital program. In 1951 the Republican Senators voted 9 to 1 to block Federal help to train more doctors. And that same year they voted 4 to 1 against badly needed help for State and local public health units. Then when I asked for an insurance pro- gram along the lines of social security, to help you save to pay those doctor bills, the Republicans made a political football out of the whole thing. They put on the biggest smear campaign you ever saw. Now, do you want to trust your welfare to a crowd with a record like that? I don't think you do. You had better not expect any help from the Republican candidate for President. He is even worse than the Republicans in Con- gress. He issued a statement the other day that is supposed to tell where he stands on health matters. And if it means what it says, it's the most reactionary document I ever saw. In his statement, the Republican general did not seem to know that there was a medi- cal care problem. He did not come out for anything positive except locally administered indigent medical care programs. That means help for charity cases. He didn't say anything about all the other fine things the Government is doing in the field of medicine. I wonder if the general knows that some of the greatest discoveries in medical history were made by Government doctors, and that millions of lives have been saved as a result? Maybe he never heard of the Public Health Service — or maybe he wants to do away with it. I don't know. Maybe he never heard of the research the Government is doing on cancer and heart disease and mental illness and many others — or maybe he wants to do away with that research. Maybe he never heard of the Hill-Burton Act that helped you get your hospital here — or maybe he's against hospitals like that. I don't know. The Republican candidate has a sign on the back of his train that says "Look Ahead Neighbor." But when it comes to meeting the health needs of the people, that sign ought to say "Look Out Neighbor." You can't expect much help from him. That is true of a lot of other things, too. He is awful free and easy with generalities about the wonderful things he would do, but when it comes to the specific issues, he al- ways follows the line of the special interest 641 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents lobbies. I know, because I have been fight- ing those lobbies ever since I went to Wash- ington in 1935. Now I will tell you another story about this health thing. The American Medical Association had a spasm over it. They col- lected $25 — or tried to from all their mem- bers— to go out and make a fight. And they hired a lot of experts in the public re- lations field to get them a slogan and tell the public what was the matter. And that public outfit decided that maybe "socialized medicine" would be a good slogan, and they got out that socialized medicine thing. The other day at Philadelphia, before the Hospital Association of the United States, I told the Hospital Association what the facts were and what I was trying to do — which is to help people help themselves. And the American Medical Association folded up its socialized medicine outfit, and the head of it joined the Republican Party to see if he couldn't keep health from being an issue in this campaign. Well, they can't, for I am going to make it an issue. My advice to you is, don't take a chance on a fellow who doesn't know any more about the interior workings of the civil gov- ernment of the United States than does that great General Eisenhower. And I am very fond of him. I like him as a general, but I am sure I am not going to like him for Presi- dent of the United States. And I want you to give that matter a great deal of thought — a great deal of thought — because your interests are at stake. It is you. You are the Government, the people of the United States; because the Constitution says the power shall be lodged in the people, and the people have the right to exercise that power in the selection of their public servants, from the county, the State, the Nation. And if you use good judgment you will always have good judgment. But if you don't, you are liable to get something you will be sorry for. I can tell you something that you can do next November. You can look out for your own interests, you can look out for the wel- fare of this great Nation, you can look out for the peace of the world, as you go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and then the country will be safe for another 4 years. You have had experience with this situa- tion. Help yourselves. Help the Nation. Vote the Democratic ticket, and let us have 4 more years of safety and good government. Thank you very much. [9.] Belton, Montana (Rear platform, 8:40 p.m.) I appreciate very much the cordiality of this welcome tonight. I have had the same sort of welcome all the way across the great State of Montana. I came out this morn- ing— after having been at Wolf Point the night before at 10:30, and I thought every- body in eastern Montana was there at that time — but I got up this morning at 7 to leave town and there were more of them at 7 than there were at 10:30 last night. So you can't help but feel the welcome when a State treats you like that when you come in. All the way across the State it has been the same way. I told some of them that they were coming out in greater numbers than they did when I was running for office, so I feel highly complimented since I am not running for office. This is beautiful country. I have enjoyed seeing it very much indeed, and I am only sorry that it gets dark so soon. You should have arranged it so that the sun shines all night in this beautiful country, especially this time of year. I am sorry that I won't have a chance to see anything of Glacier Park. I believe it is one of the grandest sights in this whole country. And I certainly do enjoy touring around these wonderful parks of ours — and seeing what a good job those rangers do. Maybe I can come out here and go through the park next summer. I'll have a lot more time and leisure, I hope, at that time; and I won't have so many people interested in 642 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Sept. 30 [268] what I am going to do or what I am going to say. You see, I am rather a busy person right now, working at one of my five jobs. I am trying to do my share to help the Demo- cratic Party win another election. You see, I have been in the political game for a long, long time — 40 years or more. I have been in elective public office for 30 years, and that's a long time. I was elected to county offices and State offices, the United States Senate, and then as Vice President, and as President. And I have always had a hard time getting the office I wanted. I never had it, in fact, but after I got it, I never let any- body take it away from me, unless I wanted to give it up voluntarily. I have been studying government and politics ever since I was a boy in high school, and I have been interested in it. I have been interested in government for what it means, and I came to the conclusion a long, long time ago that the Government of this great Republic of ours is in the hands of the peo- ple, that politics is government. And I came to the conclusion that the most honorable profession in the country is politics — and politics in the sense that it is government is, in my opinion, the most honorable job that there is, the most honorable career that a man can have. I have been traveling all day through this State with the men and women who are candidate's for office in Montana, and I have come to the conclusion that you have a wonderful number of candidates on the Democratic ticket, and if I were a citizen of Montana I wouldn't hesitate a minute about sending Governor Bonner back to the Governor's chair. I wouldn't hesitate a moment about electing Mr. Metcalf for Con- gressman in this district, because I know he will carry on the precedent which Mike Mansfield has set as one of the greatest Congressmen that the Congress has ever had. You see, Mike is not only a good Congress- man for the great State of Montana, but Mike is a statesman. He has an idea of the great- ness of this Republic of ours. He knows the foreign policy of your country. In fact, I appointed him as a delegate to the United Nations which met in Paris, and Mike made a great contribution to that meeting, he told Vishinsky where to get off. I am proud to be campaigning for these Montana candidates for office, and I hope I help them with this trip today. My only object in getting into this campaign is my sin- cere desire to see the welfare of this great Nation the first object of the people. Now you are the Government. It is you that says who shall be President, who shall be Vice President, who shall be Governor of Montana, who shall be Senator from Mon- tana, who shall be Congressman from Mon- tana, and who shall fill the other offices that are vacant in this great State in this election year. If you don't use your judgment and exer- cise your privilege and prerogative, if you don't have good government, you have nobody to blame but yourself. I have been in this game, as I told you, a long time, and the people who do the most quarreling about government and the people in it are those who take the least interest in seeing that they get the right kind of gov- ernment. I am going to spend the rest of my life after I get out of this job of mine trying to impress upon the young people of this country the fact that they have the greatest Government in the history of the world, they have the greatest country that has ever been on earth, and it is up to them to continue that great Government in the manner in which it has come down to us. It is the leader of the free nations of the world. Whether we like it or not we are the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. We are the leader of the free nations of Europe. We are the leader of the free nations of the Asiatic countries. We must, therefore, accept that respon- sibility and place ourselves in position of leadership — which we have never had to do 643 [268] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents before. We sometimes think that it would be fine if we could build a fence around ourselves and not accept this responsibility. We can't do that. Now, to continue that responsibility, we must have a man for President of the United States who understands just exactly what that means. And that is Adlai Stevenson. He has had the experience. He has been the Governor of one of the great States of the Union. He has been a successful Gov- ernor, and he has had experience in for- eign policy, he has had experience in govern- ment in every phase, and I am sure that he will carry on the policies which have made the country great in the last 20 years. Now there has been a great deal of talk in opposition to him. We have on the other side of the picture a great general who has been nominated by the Republicans to run for President. I am very fond of that great general, but his whole life has been spent as a military man. He has a military mind, which is a very peculiar one. I had to deal with military minds ever since I went to Washington — that has been 18 years — and I think I understand it pretty well. I ran a committee in the Senate and had some very, very strange experiences with the military mind. And that's no reflection on the great general. He was one of our great leaders in World War II. He did a wonderful job as Commanding General of Allied Forces in Europe. But that in no way fits him to be President of the United States. You know, the President of the United States, whether the public knows it or not, is a public relations man. It is his business to get the various branches of the Govern- ment— the legislative, the executive and the various departments — in the frame of mind to cooperate, and he spends most of his time talking to people trying to persuade them to do what they ought to do without being persuaded. That is not the habit of a military man. He says, "You do this," and if it isn't done, the fellow gets court-martialed. "You do that," and if it isn't done, the fellow gets court-martialed. But the President can't court-martial anybody. If he does he will find himself out on a limb, and he can't get reelected or do anything that is worth- while for his country. I am hoping that you will take a public re- lations man, a man who understands our form of government and how to use it, and put him in the White House for the next 4 years. I am asking you to use your prerogative on election day and go to the polls. Study this situation. Get all the information you can get. That is what you are entitled to have. Then make up your mind in your own best interests, and in the best interests of this great Nation of ours, and in the best inter- ests of the free world. And you can't do anything else, if you study it well enough, but go to the polls on election day in November and vote the Democratic ticket. And if you do that, the country will be safe for another 4 years. It has been a very great pleasure for me to be in Montana today, and I appreciate it. note: In the course of his remarks on September 30 the President referred to Representative Mike Mansfield, Democratic candidate for Senator, Sena- tor James E. Murray, Willard E. Fraser, Democratic candidate for Representative, Arnold H. Olsen, State Attorney General, Governor John W. Bonner, and Associate Justice of the State Supreme Court Lee Metcalf, Democratic candidate for Representative, all of Montana, and Senator Styles Bridges of New Hampshire. He also referred to Charles F. Bran- nan, Secretary of Agriculture, Andrei Y. Vishinsky, Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, and Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President. 644 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Sept. 30 [269] 269 Address at Tiber Dam, Montana. September 30, 1952 THANK YOU, Governor. I appreciate that introduction. I appreciate very much the privilege of being here and taking part in these ceremonies. I am glad to see work start on Tiber Dam. I have high hopes for the good that it will do in this whole region. You know, I have been present at many a one of these dedications. I was present at the dedication of Grand Coulee and Bonne- ville. And just the other day down in Arkansas, south of the Missouri line, I was present at the dedication of two dams on the White River, which will create an immense amount of power in that part of the world. In nearly every instance where I have been present at the dedication of these dams, I have been informed that there were certain people — most of them in the Republican Party — who believed it was a waste of time, a waste of money to create the assets and take care of the resources of this great country of ours. It was said of Grand Coulee when it was up for consideration — one of the greatest dams in the world — that it would do nothing but just pile up a lot of water for the jack- rabbits and the groundhogs to look at and never would do anybody any good. Well, that great dam is creating nearly 2 million kilowatts of power per day, and that great dam is also irrigating 2 million acres of land right at this present time. And this great project here will create an asset for the peo- ple of the United States that will create tax- payers on land that now is not able to raise enough to pay the taxes that they will be able to raise when this project is completed. We are creating assets for the people of the United States when we make expenditures for the development of these great water projects. Tiber Dam will store the water to irrigate 127,000 acres of land. And when the water is on that land it will be worth 10 or 20 times, maybe a hundred times what it is worth now. The dam will help greatly to prevent flooding on the Marias River. And behind this dam a lake will form — 25 miles long — to serve as a recreation center for this whole area of Montana. This dam will be a wonderful thing for Montana. But the good it will do is not limited to this State by any means. It is an integral part of the development of the whole Missouri basin. It will hold back floods and help to regulate a channel for navigation in other States — hundreds of miles away. And one of those States is the great State of Missouri. The Missouri basin contains a sixth of the area of the United States. The proper use of its water resources is one of the biggest development jobs ever undertaken in the history of the world. We have already made great progress, but there is much more to be done. Earlier this year I appointed a Missouri Basin Survey Commission headed by James E. Lawrence of Lincoln, Nebraska, composed of citizens of the basin States. It is the job of this Com- mission to recommend the best way to com- plete this great development program. I understand that the Commission has been having some very fine hearings, and I am sure that its report will be a great help to all of us who are interested in the Missouri basin. All this development work we are doing here in the West has come about because this country has a government that believes in helping people — helping people to get the things they want and need and are entitled to. That is what government is for. And that is how the Democratic Party has always conceived and practiced it. For 20 years we have been working to build up this Nation, for the people. We have been working to develop the whole country. Here in the West you know what we have done, and what we are doing, to help you get more water on your land and more power for your 645 [269] Sept. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents homes and farms and factories. Water and power — in the right amounts, and at the right price — are all you need to make Montana boom as never before. You are at the beginning of a great new age out here, and the Democratic Party is determined to help you make it a reality. I say that not just for myself, but for the many fine Democrats here in Montana — men like James E. Murray, Mike Mansfield — who have contributed so greatly to the Demo- cratic Party's record of accomplishment here in the West. And I want to say a special word about your Democratic candidate for Congress, Willard Fraser. If you need any more help in getting things done for eastern Montana, just send him to Congress. The way he has been talking to me this morning about Yel- lowtail Dam, I know he won't rest until he gets it. That's the way the two Mikes worked all these developments here — one of them was on the Appropriations Committee; and if it hadn't been for my good friend Mike from Ohio over there, you wouldn't have gotten this dam. You ought to give him a little credit — and you ought to do something for Ohio — make them go Democratic. The best thing we can do for him is to have Ohio in the Democratic column. He is one of the best Democrats in the United States. I know that Mr. Fraser will undertake your problems and carry out your hopes here. And I know, too, that I speak for the party's candidate for President. I know he understands your problems and your hopes out here. I know he will carry on our work for progress and development. That is why I am traveling through this country now, campaigning for Adlai Steven- son of Illinois. It is a good thing for the West — a good thing for this whole country, that the Demo- cratic Party and the Democratic candidate are friends of yours. It is a good thing they believe in, and will work for, the projects you need to build up your resources, to de- velop your agriculture and your industry and your trade. For, my friends, one thing is certain. The Republican Party and the Republican candidate for President are not one bit interested in these things. They do not like them, and they do not want them. They have opposed them at every step of the way. That is the record of the Republican Party in the Congress. And I am inviting you to read that record and inform yourselves so you will know that what I tell you is the truth. I don't have to get out and lie on the Republicans. They have done enough bad things to make it unnecessary. It is a black and disheartening record of subservi- ence to every selfish lobby that has placed profits for itself above progress for the people of the West. Consider the record for a moment. Re- member, if you will, the 80th Congress, when the Republicans had a majority. They tried their best to cripple REA, to hamper flood control, to destroy our national policy on public power. Of course, the Republicans did not suc- ceed in all they tried to do. In 1948 they were rejected and defeated by the people. You know, I had a hand in administering that defeat, and I must say I enjoyed it — and they deserved it. We are going to lick them again, because it's for the welfare of this country to do it. They didn't learn anything from that ex- perience. For 4 years since, they have been trying, as they are trying now, to slow down and obstruct every progressive program that helps build up this whole great region. In 1950 the Republican Senators voted two to one to slice in half all the flood con- trol work in this country. In 195 1 a solid majority of Republicans in Congress voted to cut out Government transmission lines, like the one which brings low-cost Fort Peck power to your cooperatives here. These are only two examples. There are many others, which I will be glad to men- tion as I go along. Now, my friends, I cannot conceive that 646 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [270] the people of this country would entrust their future to a party which has that kind of record. I cannot conceive that they would make so grave an error, provided that they know what is at stake for them. So I have considered it my duty to travel .here and make the issues plain to the voters of this great State, to make sure that the people understand which party serves their interests and which does not. I hope that these remarks have helped to make that clear to you today. You yourselves — your interests and the interests of this country of ours are at stake in the election that is about to take place next November. Your interests are the in- terests of the country. Your interests are at stake. Study these things. I hope you will read the Congressional Record, as I read it religiously. It's a hard book to read because it's as dry as this dust here without any water on it; but if you read it you will find that the record I am pointing at is exactly what I say it is. And you will find that record has been conclusively against your interests every chance they have to vote. They don't want to tell about that. They are going out now telling you how much they love you and what they would like to do for you. They don't want to do anything for you. It's what they are going to do to you; you had better watch out. Now I hope you will take these things to heart, and I hope you will check up on the things I have told you, because every single statement I have made can be proved by the record. And the record stands in black and white. So go to the polls next November. Vote for your own interests. Vote for the welfare of the greatest Nation on earth, and vote for peace in the world. Vote the Democratic ticket. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 2:20 p.m. from a plat- form erected near the dam site. In his opening words he referred to Governor John W. Bonner of Montana. Later he referred to, among others, Representative Mike Mansfield, Democratic candi- date for Senator, Senator James E. Murray, and Willard E. Fraser, Democratic candidate for Repre- sentative, all of Montana, and Representative Michael J. Kirwan of Ohio. For the President's statement upon signing an Executive order establishing the Missouri Basin Sur- vey Commission, see Item 3. 270 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Montana and Idaho. October i, 1952 [1.] Columbia Falls, Montana (Rear platform, 8:05 a.m.) I am very happy indeed to be here this morning, and I am more than complimented and pleased that all of you were so willing to get up early and come down and see us off. You didn't get up before I did, though. I have been up since 5 o'clock. I took a walk down the railroad track and tried to get the sheriff to go with me and walk to St. Paul — and he wouldn't do it. This is a wonderful country. I am out here for the specific purpose of dedicating Hungry Horse Dam, from which you are going to get a great deal of power. I understand that already some great indus- tries are locating here. And I also want to call your attention to something else. I am also here for the benefit of the Democratic Party. As President of the United States and a Democrat, I am the head of the Democratic Party, and I want to impress upon you that that party has really done things for the country over the last 20 years, and I don't think you want to go back on it. Now you have had a great Congressman from this district, Mike Mansfield. He has really done things for this great State. He is responsible for the fact that you have 647 [270] Oct. Public Papers of the Presidents Hungry Horse Dam. It was bitterly fought by the Republicans in the Congress. They fight everything of that sort because they say we are on a trend for socialism. Now the head of the Democratic Party doesn't be- lieve that we are on the road to socialism. They nominated a great general for Presi- dent on the Republican ticket. He was down here at Boulder Dam — Hoover Dam — in New Mexico and Arizona and Nevada, and was highly pleased with that dam down there because it was self-liquidating. Well, after he was nominated for President on the Republican ticket he had been in touch with the power lobby, and he found out that that was not quite so good, and he didn't be- lieve in it and he didn't think it ought to be done. And I am here to tell you that if you want to forgo the privileges of these great im- provements and these great assets which have been put into the Northwest, just go ahead and vote the Republican ticket and see what happens to you — and you will deserve it if you do vote the Republican ticket. I won't sympathize with you, because I am warning you. Now we have a young man running for Congress in this district to succeed Mike Mansfield, Mr. Metcalf — and I hope you will put him on your list along with your great Governor, John Bonner. He has made a good Governor of Montana, and you ought to send him back to the capital city to be your Governor for another 4 years. And there is one thing you must do — you must vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman — if you expect these great pro- gressive improvements to keep on coming to this part of the world. There hasn't been a single great national improvement in the form of Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hungry Horse, and Shasta, and all the rest of them that I can name, that has been approved by the Republican minority in the Congress. The majority of them have voted against those projects every time they had a chance. You wouldn't have them if it weren't for the fact that you have had a Democrat in the White House for the last 20 years; and you have had Democrats in Congress like Mike Mansfield and Jim Murray who believe in these things. Now just consider that a little bit. Look at your own situation, and when it comes time to vote in November, vote for your- selves. You are the Government of this country — the people of the Government. And if you vote wrong you vote against yourselves, and then you get what you de- serve, because you haven't studied these things, you haven't read the fine print. These fellows will get up and tell you a lot of things about what they will do and what they intend to do, but you ought to read the record of the things they have done, and you will find that it is not in the public interest — or your interest. So, whatever you do, be sure you vote that Democratic ticket — and vote for your- selves and the welfare of this Nation, and the welfare of the world as a whole. [2.] Hungry Horse, Montana (Rear plat- form, 9:45a.m.) Thank you very much for this souvenir of the horse. That makes a pair of them. I appreciate the privilege of being here. It has been a fine morning — had a good look at the project down here, and I am going to tell you something about it when I get "downtown." Where's Margaret? [3.] Hungry Horse, Montana (Dedica- tion address at the Dam, 11:05 a.m., see Item 271) [4.] Kalispell, Montana (High School Auditorium, 1 1 :45 a.m.) Thank you very much — thank you very much. And, of course, it gives me a lot of pleasure to introduce to you a young lady who doesn't need any introduction. She happens to be my daughter, and she is the greatest asset I have — and I am proud of her. 648 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 1 [270] I have had a wonderful time in this great State of Montana. I don't think I have ever enjoyed a day any more than I did yesterday and today in the trip across this great State. Your Governor made the statement awhile ago in the other auditorium, that Montana was the greatest State in the Union. Well, Montana is a great State, but I told him I can- not say Montana is the greatest State because I represent 48 States and I can't even say Missouri is the greatest State. I hope that you young people will pay particular attention to government, and what it means. The people of the United States are the Government of the United States, under the Constitution. There are limitations in the Constitution on the powers of the President, the powers of the Legislature, and the powers of the Court. It is your business to find out just exactly what your interest in the Government is, because the fundamental power in the Gov- ernment of the United States is in the people. If you young people yourselves will study history as you should, you will find that you live under the greatest government in the greatest Republic in the history of the World — you live under the greatest govern- ment that has ever been designed by the mind of man. But that government cannot continue if people who form that government — the peo- ple who have the power to run that govern- ment— themselves do not understand and maintain it. You must know that you yourselves are responsible for freedom, for the right sort of government you should have. And when you don't exercise your right to vote, when you don't inform yourselves on the issues in every campaign — it makes no difference what kind of campaign it is, city, county, State, or national — and that election goes wrong and you get bad people in, there is nobody to blame but yourselves. Now, I am very anxious that you young people should now begin to understand what your responsibilities are, and you should inform yourselves. It is the greatest study in the world — the study of government. It is the greatest business in the world — the business of government. I am interested in it and have been inter- ested in it ever since I was your age. I started in politics 40 years ago as a precinct worker — a clerk of a polling place. I was the postmaster in a town of 300, 1 was a road overseer, I was a township committeeman. I have been a county official, State official, and you know the rest of it. I got inveigled into the place where I am now. And I am not advising you that it always comes out that way, but somebody has to have the job. And it might be you. So, get yourselves ready. Get yourselves informed. And always protect the freedom of the United States of America by your vote. [5.] Whitefish, Montana (Rear plat- form, 12:40 p.m.) I have been having a grand time in Mon- tana today, telling the people some of the things that they ought to hear and know about their country, and about a certain political party that I don't belong to. We had a wonderful meeting over in Kalispell, and I think that the people found out some things as a result of that meeting that they didn't know before. I am glad to be here. I have just come back here, as you know, by way of Kalispell, from Hungry Horse Dam, and it is a won- derful thing for Montana and the whole West. I am out on this trip in my capacity as the head of the Democratic Party. That is one of the five jobs the President has to per- form. I want to see a Democratic victory just as badly — this fall — as I did in 1948. And you know that was pretty bad. I have had a wonderful visit on the train with the candidates for office here in Mon- tana. I had a most pleasant visit with Gov- ernor Bonner, and I think that you ought to 649 [270] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents send him back to the Governor's chair for another 4 years. You need men like him in charge of Montana. I have become acquainted with Lee Met- calf, and I just found out that he is a Justice of the Supreme Court in Montana. I told him I wish I had some young and vigorous men like him on the Supreme Court of the United States — I would like it a lot better. I know that you will send him to Congress in place of Mike Mansfield's job. You need somebody young and vigorous to keep up the good work that Mike started for this dis- trict. He was the most persistent man in the Congress for the welfare of Montana as a whole, and his own district in particular. Since I became President, I have seen more of Mike Mansfield than any other Congress- man— he was always after something for Montana, and he usually got it. So there- fore you ought to send him to the Senate. And as I said awhile ago in Kalispell, if he pesters the next President like he did me, he will get everything Montana wants. I want you to know about the national ticket, too, which is of vital importance to me. I have had certain policies to pursue for the 7 years I have been President, and I want to see those policies continued and carried out — the liberal policies of the Demo- cratic platform. When a candidate is elected on the Democratic platform, it is his busi- ness to carry out that platform. It isn't just a scrap of paper. It should be carried out to the best of his ability. The platform of 1948 has been carried out as far as I can possibly carry it out. We have a platform of 1952 which is one of the best that was ever written for any Democratic candidate to run on. And we have the candidates for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman — running on that platform, and they are supporting that platform, and telling you what they are going to do about putting that platform into effect. What I am out here for is to tell you what has been done by the Democratic adminis- trations of the past 20 years and you have profited by those acts that have been carried out. And the real issue in this election is whether we are going to continue to work for all the people, as the Democratic Party is supposed to, or whether you are going to* turn the Government over to the special in- terests and let them ride you, as they have- in the past whenever they have been in power. We must work for the interests of all the people, and the interests of all the people are wrapped up in the Democratic Party. I want to tell you something, too. That Republican candidate for President has a sign on the back of his train which says, "Look ahead, neighbor." Now it ought to- say, "Look out, neighbor." And that means you. Do you want more power for the West — more dams like Hungry Horse? Then you had better "look out, neighbor." The Republicans won't give it to you if they get in charge. You railroad men, and you other workers,, do you like social security and railroad re- tirement and union recognition and the union shop? Well, "look out, neighbor." The Republicans don't like these things and they never have, and they are going to take them away from you as fast as they can — no- doubt about that. They have already. Re- member in 1948 they had matters all set up to pound labor into the ground; and they had to run back home — they didn't get a chance to do it. But if they get charge of the Government, you had better watch out. And you farmers and businessmen here, do you want cheaper freight rates to get your goods to market? Then, "look out, neigh- bor." The railroad lobby is right on the board of directors of the Republican Party — and their voice and not your voice will be what counts if the Republicans get control of the Government. Above all, do you people want real leader- ship to keep this country prosperous and: 650 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [270] bring real peace? Then you had better "look out, neighbor." The Republican can- didate is a man who has spent his whole life in the Army — he doesn't know much about what goes on in the civilian world. He isn't supposed to. He was a West Point graduate. He started in when he was 18, and he has made one of the greatest records in the world as general in command of the Allied forces in the Second World War. He was an ex- cellent general, but his mind is a military mind, and the military mind can't under- stand civilian people. That's the reason they made the President Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the country, because he knows exactly what the civilian people are thinking about — himself being one. And if he has had a little military experience, he can also tell a general what to do — which I have done in several instances. Now I like Ike, and I like him fine — as I say — as that commanding general; but I don't like him for what he stands now. I don't think he knows what he is doing. I think Bob Taft and all the Republican re- actionaries are whispering in his ear, and pulling his leg, and he is going out and say- ing things they are telling; and he just doesn't know what they mean. If you like Ike as much as I do, you will vote with me to send him back to the Army, where he belongs. That's the best thing you can do for him — and get him out of the terrible company that he is now keeping. And it will help our country keep out of the mess we will be in if he is elected. Think of yourselves when you go to the polls. Think about what helps you, and the whole country. It is your interest that is at stake. It is your pocketbook that will be touched if these big interests get control of the country. The big interests certainly run the Republican Party, and they always have. You can stop that. Do the country and yourselves a service — and do yourselves the greatest service possible — if you will go to the polls on November the 4th and vote a straight Democratic ticket. Thank you very much . [6.] Eureka, Montana (Rear platform, 2 p.m.) I certainly do appreciate that wonderful welcome, and I appreciate the privilege of being introduced by the next junior Senator from Montana. I am out here performing one of my five jobs as President. You see, the President has five jobs, any one of which would be more than a full-time job for one man; but I have to do all five of them between sun and sun. I am campaigning in my position as the head of the Democratic Party for a victory in November for that party. You have some wonderful Democrats here in Montana run- ning for office. Your Governor, the Honorable John Bon- ner, is a friend of mine. I was acquainted with him in 1948. He has made you a good Governor, and if Montana knows what's good for it, it will put him back in the Gov- ernor's chair again — and I am sure that is what they are going to do. You have had a Congressman in this dis- trict who is one of the ablest and most per- sistent Congressmen in the Congress. He is being succeeded — I hope — by Judge Met- calf. He impresses me, Judge Metcalf does, as an able and distinguished citizen and one I am sure that will represent Montana as it should be represented from this district. Mike Mansfield, you know, was not only a Congressman from Montana, but Mike was interested in the welfare of the whole coun- try. If you send him to the Senate — and I know that is what you are going to do — Montana will have the best representation in the United States in the United States Senate. Jim Murray and Mike Mansfield will put Montana where it belongs. And on our national ticket we have one of the finest presidential candidates any 651 [270] Oct. Public Papers of the Presidents party ever had — Adlai Stevenson, the Gover- nor of Illinois. He has been a great Gover- nor. He will make a great President. He is a man you can trust to work for you — that is, he will work for the common people. That is what I am doing. And I want to tell you something. This is a very important election year that is com- ing up in November. This country's chance for a good and prosperous future may be de- cided on election day. And once the choice is made, there is no way to go back on it for 4 long years. I want you to think about that. Think about what the Republicans offer you and what you will get from them. I will give you a little help on that: you will get nothing but trouble — and bad trouble at that — from the Republicans. The Republican Party has an unbroken record of fighting against everything the plain people of this country want and need. You read what I had to say at Kalispell this morning, and what I am going to say at Spokane tonight, and you will find out a lot about their record. And I might just say that the last time the Republicans ran this country, they ran it right into the ground. And it was the Democratic Party that pulled it out. My friends, if these people grab control of the Congress and the White House, I wouldn't be surprised if you had to stop sell- ing Christmas trees. The people won't have money enough to buy Christmas trees, if the Republicans get control of the Government. Now seriously, these Republicans can't be trusted with the Government of this coun- try. Their record in the Congress shows that as plainly as it is possible to be seen. And I am sorry to say their candidate is no help. I like Ike — I like him very much, but I like him as general of the Army and he has no business in the White House. He certainly doesn't know very much about civil life or civil government, or even about how to run the Republican Party. I can't think of a worse situation than -an uninformed military man fronting for a party with a record like the Republicans have. Don't you fall for it. Don't you trust them, and don't vote for them. Think of your own interests. Think of what helps you — and then vote for yourselves. You are the Government, and if you vote for yourselves you will vote for the party that has always been for the people, the party that has put you in the prosperous condition in which you are now. Look out for yourselves — and look out for the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. And look out for the peace of the world. And if you do that honestly and conscien- tiously, you will go to the polls in November and vote the straight Democratic ticket, and then we will have 4 more years of safety for the greatest Republic in the history of the world. [7.] Libby, Montana (Rear platform, 3:25 p.m.) I appreciate being here, and I want to tell you this is one of the most cordial welcomes I have had since I started out, and I cer- tainly do appreciate it. I am grateful for it. I am campaigning, as you know, for Dem- ocratic victory this fall, in my capacity as head of the Democratic Party. And I don't need to tell you what a good group of Dem- ocrats you have running here in Montana — you have just been meeting them. I think that it would be the finest thing in the world if you people would send John Bonner back to the capital of Montana as your Governor. He has made a good Governor for the past 4 years, and he will make you another good one. If you send Judge Metcalf to the Congress to succeed Mike Mansfield, you won't make any mistake. Mike, as you know, has been one of the ablest Congressmen that the coun- try has ever had. He has been a good man as Congressman from Montana in getting things done for the great State of Montana. 652 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [270] But he has been a statesman as well. I sent him on a United Nations commission and he made Mr. Vishinsky take a back seat when he got too smart. And he will do the same thing with some of our smart Repub- lican Senators, if you send him to the Senate. Then you will have wonderful representation in the Senate, with Jim Murray and Mike Mansfield both — Montana will be as well represented, and I might say better repre- sented than nearly any other State in the Union. One of your local Democrats traveling on this train gave me an editorial from the Lewistown, Montana, paper. And I thought it was so interesting I would like to read a part of what it says. This paper said: "Figures don't lie. Figures don't lie, if you use them carefully. And a careful study shows the total take of Montanans, so far as their personal incomes are concerned, has jumped 'right smart' in the past two decades." In fact, the $1,026 million made by all the Montanans in 195 1 represented an increase of 268.8 percent over the 1935 to 1939 average. Now that is according to the Department of Commerce. That sounds to me like you people in Montana have been doing pretty well under the New Deal and the Fair Deal. The Re- publicans will tell you a different story. They will tell you that the country is in ter- rible shape. I don't think you can place too much confidence in what they tell you. They are making quite an effort in this campaign to rewrite the history of recent years, but I don't think they are going to be able to fool you, because you can see for your- self— you can judge from your own expe- rience, that this country is not going to the dogs the way they tell you it is. Now I know that all of you want the same kind of thing for this wonderful coun- try of ours that I do, and I know that you want a country where the people are happy and prosperous and at peace with the world. We can have that kind of country. I believe that we are at the beginning of the most wonderful new age in the history of the world, if we use our resources wisely and well. In order to take advantage of the great opportunities that lie before us, we must have the right kind of government in Washington. We must have a government that under- stands the needs of the people and that works to meet those needs. That is the kind of government you have had for the past 20 years from the Democratic Party. That is the kind of government, if you elect a Demo- cratic President and a Democratic Congress, you will have for the next 4 years. So, my friends, for your own sake and for the sake of your country, and for your own personal welfare, the welfare and the peace of the world, I advise you to go to the polls and vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, and the whole Democratic ticket, then the country will be in safe hands for another 4 years. I certainly appreciate your coming out here this afternoon. [8.] Troy, Montana (Rear platform, 4:05 p.m.) I have been having a wonderful time in this great State of Montana. The welcome here has been a warm one, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. You see, I am out here on a missionary jaunt — a special mission. I am trying to work up enough enthusiasm to elect the Democratic ticket by an overwhelming majority. I have been riding on the train all day today with the candidates for office here in Montana, and they look pretty good to me. If I lived in Montana I would vote the Demo- cratic ticket. I am going to vote that way down in Missouri, too. Your young man, Judge Metcalf, looks to me like he would make a good Congressman, and I think you ought to send him there to take the position that is now held by Mike Mansfield. Mike has made a wonderful 653 [270] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents Congressman — there isn't a better one in the Congress; and he will make you a great Senator. And if you send Mike to the Sen- ate, you will have two great Senators. Montana will be well represented in the Senate. And I wish Missouri could be as well represented. And I hope it will be after this next election. Your Governor has made a good Gover- nor, and he ought to be sent back as Gover- nor for another 4 years. I am also highly and keenly interested in the candidates for President and Vice Presi- dent. Adlai Stevenson, as Governor of Illinois, has given that State about the best and most honest and most progressive gov- ernment it ever had in its history. I have been traveling across the country telling the people some plain facts, and what it all adds up to is that the Republican Party has a sorry record. They have been against almost every kind of progressive measure that makes this country a better place in which to live. I told the people up at Kalispell to take a real good look at Hungry Horse Dam, be- cause if the Republicans get in, you might never see another one like it. And if they do get in, I wouldn't be surprised if they turned all the power from Hungry Horse over to the Montana Power Company — and you know what that will mean to you in costs and prices. As for Libby Dam, you might as well for- get about it, if you elect the Republicans. As I told the chief of police back there at Libby — he asked me what about the dam — I said, "Well, it's up to you. If you don't send people to Congress that have got sense enough to vote for that dam, you won't get it." I am saying the same thing to you. You know, some strange things have been happening in the Republican Party lately. It's getting so it is hard to tell what the let- ters GOP stand for. Back in 1948, I said GOP stands for "Gluttons Of Privilege." And there is a lot of truth in that, because the Republican Party was the party of special privilege in 1948, and it still is today. Then the other day, Governor Stevenson said he had heard the GOP stands for "Grouchy Old Pessimists." And there is a lot of truth in that. You know, the Repub- lican Party has taken an official stand against laughter. Now I have heard another one. They tell me that GOP stands for the "Generals' Own Party" — or put it another way the "Party of the Generals." There's a lot of truth in that. The Republicans have General Motors and General Electric and General Foods and General MacArthur and General Martin and General Wedemeyer. And then they have their own five-star general who is running for President, and I understand he will carry some other generals around with him to give him a hand in the political campaign. That's a lot of generals. I want to say to you, that every general I know is on this list — every general I have mentioned in this list is in the general's column, except general welfare, and general welfare is in with the corporals and the privates in the Democratic Party. That's all right with me. Of course, if all the generals in the country were to vote for General Eisenhower, and all the privates would vote for Adlai Stevenson, you know what the results would be. I was a captain in World War I, but I said right after the Democratic Convention that I was just a buck private in the rear ranks in this campaign. Of course, I also happen to be President, and therefore I am leader of the Democratic Party. But I am ready to act as a private any time Adlai Stevenson asks me to act as one. Here in Montana you have a chance to send to the U.S. Senate a man who was a GI himself, and he is a great friend and bene- factor of you all; and that is Mike Mans- field. And our candidate for President is a man who never got beyond the rank of apprentice seaman in the First World War. And he is a good man, and he will do right by you. And I want you to consider your own interests when it comes time to cast your ballot. Remember that you are the Gov- 654 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 1 [270] •ernment. You are the people of the Govern- ment. You get the kind of government you are entitled to when you vote. If you vote for the wrong man and get bad govern- ment, there is nobody to blame but yourself. I am telling you how to vote so you won't get bad government. Go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and the country will be safe for an- other 4 years. [9.] Bonners Ferry, Idaho (Rear plat- form, 4:10 p.m., p.s.t.) I am most happy to be back in Idaho -again — although I am just barely in. I guess you know why I am here. I have five distinct jobs where I serve the people of the United States and one of those jobs is to act as the head of the Democratic Party. Any President in office is the head of his party. Therefore, I feel it is my duty as the head of the party to come out and inform you of the issues of this campaign, so you will understand just exactly with what the country is faced. I have certainly enjoyed seeing Gracie Pfost again. She is a fine person, and she will give you the right kind of representation in Congress. And goodness knows, that's what Idaho needs. I want you all to go and vote for Adlai Stevenson for President, just as you did for me in 1948. Adlai Stevenson will be one of the greatest Presidents this country ever had, just as he has already been one of the best Governors of one of our biggest States. This morning I dedicated Hungry Horse Dam, which means so much to the people of western Montana and Idaho. Now I want to say a few words about Libby Dam. Libby Dam will solve for- ever the flood problem on the Kootenai River. You people remember how your city oi Bonners Ferry had to dig itself out in 1948 — thousands of acres of your very best farmlands were under water. You know the problem you have each year with floods on the Kootenai. But it is not only solution of the floods that I am in- terested in. Libby Dam, like Hungry Horse, will produce nearly twice as much power downstream as it will produce at Libby it- self. The water stored at Libby Dam would help us get 4 million kilowatts of power downstream during the 4 months of low water every year. Back East, when the coal mines shut down, it sometimes makes a national emergency. We have to realize also that Mother Nature sort of quits on us 4 months out of every year, cutting your power production, and hurting your industry, exactly the same way a coal strike hurts industry back East. The solution is building dams like Libby on the Kootenai, and Hells Canyon on the Snake River. A lot of people around here don't like Hells Canyon Dam, but I have been fighting for it ever since I have been in the Congress, and I am going to keep on fighting for it. I want to tell you something — you are not likely to get these projects if the Republicans take over the Government of the United States after this election. They are not for this sort of thing. The Republicans in Con- gress have fought tooth and nail against every single project that the Democrats have ever started for this country out here. You will find, if you will study the record and the history of the United States, that the Republicans have always been against any- thing new, especially if it is for the bene- fit of the people. They fought Hungry Horse. They fought Albeni Falls and Chief Joseph — just as they are now fighting Hells Canyon. They are nothing but spokesmen for the power lobby — and all the other terrible lobbies in this country. Don't you think their five-star candidate will make it any different. In this State, at Boise, Idaho, he made a speech which shows that he has swallowed the Old Guard Re- publican policies about power. You see, he has spent all his life in the Army. He doesn't understand these ques- tions. He doesn't know the difference be- 655 [270] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents tween liberal policies and reactionary policies. So he believes anything the Old Guard tells him about power and about labor or any other of our problems. Now I like Ike, I am very fond of him. I have known him ever since he was a major in the Army. And I made him Chief of Staff of the United States when he came back from France — U.S. Army when he came back from France. I made him Com- manding General of the Allied Forces of Europe, when those treaties were set up creating Allied power for the free countries of Europe. So I think very highly of Ike, but I like Ike in the Army where he knows what he is doing. I don't think he knows anything about how to run this Government, and that is nothing to his discredit because he spent all his life in the Army. He is a graduate of West Point and has a military mind which does not work just exactly like the civilian mind in running the Govern- ment of the United States. So when November the 4th comes along, you people should go out and vote for your own interests, for the welfare of the great State of Idaho, for the welfare of the North- west. If you do that, you will vote for your- selves, because you really are the Govern- ment. The power of the Government of the United States is in the people, and when you don't exercise that franchise which the Con- stitution guarantees you, and you get bad government, you have nobody but yourselves to blame for it. Now in 1948 only about 51 percent — 52 percent of the people who are entitled to vote in this country voted. They accidentally got good government, but it wasn't the fault of those who stayed away from the polls. You can't tell what will happen if you don't go and exercise your franchise, and when you do that you ought to go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and then these progressive policies about which I have been talking will be safe, the welfare of this great country will be safe, and your own interests will be safe, and so will the peace of the world. 656 Therefore, on November the 4th go to the polls and pick you out the Democratic ticket, and put your X at the top of it, and put it in the ballot box, and go home and feel like you have done your patriotic duty for the welfare of this great Nation. [10.] Sandpoint, Idaho (Rear platform, 5 p.m., p.s.t.) Thank you very much. That's a good job. You know, I have never run across so many good young bands as I have during the last 2 or 3 days. You really do a good job on that — just as good as the Marine Band, and that's saying a lot. I am grateful for this wonderful reception here today. I have had a wonderful day riding through these mountains in Montana and Idaho. I have seen a lot of mighty fine people, and I have told them a lot of things that are good for their souls, if they will just pay attention to what I am saying. I am here on one of my Rvc jobs. You see, the President has five jobs. He is the Chief Executive of the United States. He is Com- mander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. He is the policymaker for the foreign policy of the United States, and he is the head of the Democratic Party. And that is the role in which I am working to- day. And he is also the social head of state when the visiting firemen like queens and presidents and people like that come to the country, and he has to entertain them and make them feel happy so that they will go back and tell what a nice country it is. But today I am the politician. I am the head of the Democratic Party. I am out here to tell you what the Democratic Party stands for and see if I can't convince you of what your own best interest is and why it is that way. Now I have on the train here with me some of the Idaho candidates for office. They impress me as being mighty fine people. Gracie Pfost is a grand person. I met her in 1948 when I was out here, and I have seen her in Washington, and I have enjoyed seeing her again. And I hope you will Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [270] send her to Congress because she will really represent you down there. And I will say to you that you need it mighty bad. I don't want you to forget the national ticket, either. Adlai Stevenson for Presi- dent and John Sparkman for Vice President are two as fine men as have ever been nomi- nated to those offices; and you can count on them to look after the interests of the public and the people — the plain everyday people, those are the ones that need looking after. You know, they have lobbies down there — the power trust, and they have the real estate lobby, and they have the China lobby, and they have the oil lobbies, and they have lobbies for this, that, and the other thing. And the only lobby that the people have is the man who sits in the White House. He represents 150 million people who can't afford a lobby. And when you have a man in that place who looks after your inter- ests, then you are safe. If you don't, you are in a terrible fix when the Congress and the President both go down the lobby road. I never did do it. That is what caused me so much trouble, and why I had to go out and make such a campaign in 1948. As long as I am in the White House, I am going to be the lobbyist for 150 million peo- ple who haven't any lobby. And that is what Adlai Stevenson will do if you will put him in there. He made a great record as Governor of Illinois. He is the best qualified new leader to come up in this country since Franklin Roosevelt 20 years ago. Now I want to tell you something about why I am fond of this part of the world. I like this part of the country, and I want to see it grow and prosper, and I think you will find my actions as President and as United States Senator from Missouri prove that very statement. I want to see you people in the Northwest get cheap electric power so that you can build up your industry. I want to see your rivers controlled so the water can be used to raise crops and not cause floods. I have been trying to help you get these things for 7 years — all the time I have been President, and all the time I was in the Senate, too. It's 18 years really, altogether. And so has the Democratic Party. We believe in help- ing you. We believe in helping all the peo- ple to do things through your Government that you can't do on your own. That is what the Government is for, in my opinion. But you know, there is another philosophy and theory in this country. You know, the Republican Party doesn't figure it that way. The Republican Party is controlled by the big boys — the power lobby, the big lumber lobby, and the big banks and the rest — and all the special interests combined in one outfit. And naturally those are the fellows that the Republican politicians serve. And they always have done that ever since I can remember. I started in politics 40 years ago. Started in the precinct, and I went from precinct to President. And I have been fighting Re- publicans ever since that, and I am going to keep on fighting them till I die. Not per- sonally, you understand. There are many good men who are misled by the Republican doctrine, and I have some very wonderful friends who belong to the Republican Party; but they are wrong and I spend a lot of time trying to teach them what they ought to do. Now, I have been having some fun with the Republicans and I expect to have a lot more before this campaign is over. And their candidate for President has a sign on the back of his train — as I said something about it the other day in North Dakota — and on that sign, where my Presidential seal is down there, it said, "Look ahead, neighbor." I have been pointing out to the people that it ought to say "Look out, neighbor." Brother, if you elect that Republican Presi- dent you had better look out. Do you want more power, more flood con- trol up here? You'd better look out, neigh- bor, and vote the Democratic ticket. The great dams we have built so far are the last you are ever likely to see if the Republicans come in. Hells Canyon and Libby Dams will be out the window. They have fought 657 [270] Oct. Public Papers of the Presidents Hungry Horse. They fought Bonneville. They fought Grand Coulee. They are fight- ing Hells Canyon and Libby. They fought over construction of the TVA. It's just constitutional with them. They don't be- lieve in the development of resources by Government in these United States. And I can't understand it, because when these re- sources are properly developed, it increases the land that can be taxed. It increases the wealth of the country, and that is what I am for, and always have been for. As I say, I am going to keep on being for it. Do you want good education for your kids? More medical care and social secu- rity benefits when you are older? Well, look out, now. Don't look ahead, neighbor, as they tell you — you look out, neighbor. The Republicans are against these things. Their record in Congress proves it. I am talking from the Congressional Record. I helped to make that Congressional Record from 1935 until I became President of the United States. It is a hard document to read. It is full of fine print, and the reason they print it in fine print, they want to be sure that a lot of people won't read it, because if you were to read it, you will know the Demo- cratic record, which is good; and you will find out the Republican record is something awful, and it always has been. Now the Republicans have tried every way they possibly can to sabotage RE A. The gentleman who was just introduced to you by Mrs. Pfost knows the REA picture out here in this part of the world. He is one of its first attorneys. Back in the 80th Congress — that awful Congress that I licked them on in 1948 — they did one of the most — the slickest tricks you ever heard of in your life. I sent down a request for a certain number of $100 million for the REA to make loans to its cooperatives, so they could build these lines. Well, they tacked on an- other $100 million so they could brag that they had given a hundred million dollars more than I asked for. But you know what they did ? They took $700,000 off the administrative end of the REA and fixed it so the added 100 million and what I had asked for couldn't be used* And then they wanted to make you believe that they were strong for REA. They would like to sabotage it if they could. If you put them back in there, that is about what they will do. And you railroad men and other workers here — do you like union recognition and the union shop? Do you like the accident pre- vention work the Government has been doing? Do you like our minimum wage law? Well, if you do, you had better look out on this "look ahead" business, because if you don't look out, they will take all these things away from you, or sabotage them sa you can't use them very much. The Republicans are out to turn the clock back. You know most of the policymaking Republicans are living in the age of William McKinley — in 1896 — and they don't like things that look ahead. That is their in- tention, to sabotage all these good things. And the record proves it. All they have got to do is read that fine print in that record I am telling you about. I know you are proud of your scenery out here. I have heard about the fishing, too. I hope you will enjoy these things a long, long time. But let me tell you this. If the Republicans get control of this country, scenery and fishing will be about all you will have left. I think you will probably get tired of having nothing to do but look at your scenery and eating your fish. Don't misunderstand me — I can't promise you that the Republicans won't try to take those things away from you, too — as soon as they can figure out how to make a profit out of the deal. Don't let them fool you with their five- star candidate. He is a good general and I like him. But as a politician he is no bet- ter than the rest of the Republican Old Guard. Now I know how bad they are, because I have studied their record in Con- gress, and I am telling you you had better study it, too, for your own welfare and benefit. You had better figure out where 658 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [271] your interests lie. You had better vote for yourselves. Now, as I said at the beginning, I like this part of the country. I am told that Paul Bunyan came out here and stopped — from Missouri — and I have been wondering if any of Paul's descendants are around in this part of the country. I would like to meet them if they are; because Paul is one of the tallest tales we have in Missouri. He is as tall a tale as the Republicans tell you when they tell you they want to get the Govern- ment and work for you — which they don't want to do. Now, for your own interests, for the welfare of this great country of ours, for the peace of the world, I am telling you that on November 4th you ought to vote for yourselves, because you are the Govern- ment, and if you vote for yourselves you will vote the straight Democratic ticket and keep the country safe and sound for another 4 years. Thank you very much. note: In the course of his remarks on October i the President referred to Representative Mike Mansfield, Democratic candidate for Senator, Associate Justice of the State Supreme Court Lee Metcalf, Democratic candidate for Representative, Governor John W. Bonner, and Senator James E. Murray, all of Mon- tana. He also referred to his daughter Margaret, Andrei Vishinsky, Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs,, and Mrs. Gracie Pfost, Democratic candidate for Representative from Idaho. 271 Address in Montana at the Dedication of the Hungry Horse Dam. October 1, 1952 THANK YOU very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I ap- preciate most highly that cordial introduc- tion, and that most cordial reception. Mr. Chairman, Governor Bonner, Congress- man Mansfield, Mr. Secretary of the Interior, distinguished guests, and Congressmen and Senators: I have appreciated the support which has been given to the development of the United States of America as a whole. The Gov- ernor made the statement, of course, as he should, that Montana is the greatest State in the Union. When I was in the United States Senate, I would have argued with him on that point, but in my present job, I have to say that every one of the 48 States is the best State in the Union. I want to say to the wonderful band over here, that the Marine Band plays that roll and "Hail to the Chief" every time I come in sight, but this is the first time I ever heard it all. And I have never heard the Marine Band do it any better, either. We have come here today to dedicate Hungry Horse Dam. I have just been to see the dam. It is a most magnificent struc- ture. It is the third highest and the fourth largest concrete dam in the world. It will make possible the generation of vast quanti- ties of electric power. There is one man, more than any other,, who is responsible for the existence of this dam, and I'm glad he is here today. He is. the man you are going to send to the Senate next year and his name is Mike Mansfield. And if he haunts the next President as much as he has haunted me since I have been President, you will get everything you want in Montana. When you do send Mike to the Senate,, Montana will have two of the best Senators in the United States Senate. I served with Jim Murray over here. If I was on the right side of every question, as I think I was, Jim Murray was too. Mike Mansfield led the fight for legisla- tion which was passed in 1944 to authorize the construction of Hungry Horse Dam. During the Republican 80th Congress, he fought in the House and before the Senate Appropriations Committee against Repub- lican slashes in funds needed to build that dam. 659 [271] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents I want to read you what Representative Norrell of Arkansas, a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, said in 1949 when Mike Mansfield appeared before that committee for the sixth straight year on be- half of funds for this dam. Here's what Congressman Norrell said: "I would like to say that if there is a man in Congress who is entitled to be charged with the sin — or given the credit for the good work — for creating what is commonly known as Hungry Horse Dam, Mike Mans- field is entitled to the credit or the charge. I know, as far as I am concerned, he has been instrumental in getting me to sin a lot in favor of Hungry Horse Dam." Now that's a pretty tall admission for the gentleman from Arkansas to make, and I think sometime when I go to Arkansas I'll tell on him. I know that you folks don't think there is any sin about building Hungry Horse Dam. This dam was built by the people of the United States, acting through their Govern- ment, to serve the economy, the industry, and the people of this Northwestern region. It will promote the welfare and security, and increase the prosperity of the entire United States. Now I want to give you a little advice. All of you who are here today had better go over and take another good look at that dam, because if the Republicans win this election, it will be a long time before you see another new structure of that kind. The Republican candidate for President made it perfectly plain in a speech in Boise, Idaho, a few weeks ago that he was against dams like this. The Republican candidate wasn't always against this sort of thing. Last June, he paid a visit to Boulder Dam, one of the first of the great projects like Hungry Horse which was transforming the life of the West. He learned on that visit that Boulder Dam was a self -liquidating project, and he said, "Here we have a perfect example of doing something for all the people and doing it intelligently." The General was right when he said that. But since then, he has become the nominee of the Republican Party, and he has learned the Republican Party line. After he was nominated to be the Repub- lican candidate for President, many men went to see him at Denver. And within 2 months he was talking just like one of the lobbyists for the private power monopolies. Just listen to what he said at Boise 2 months after he had expressed his admiration for Boulder Dam — I am going to quote him now — can't go back on this because it's down in black and white. "We have had for a long time a govern- ment that applies the philosophy of the left to the Government" — now that's the Repub- lican candidate talking, and he went on to explain what he meant and I quote again: "The Government will build power dams," he said, "the Government will tell you how to distribute your power, the Government will do this and that, the Government does everything but come in and wash the dishes for the housewife." That's the end of the General's quote. I'm not sure what the accusation is, whether it is that we built the dams, or that we didn't wash the dishes. But I do know that the whole statement doesn't make sense to anyone who understands that in this country the Government is the people, and not something apart from the people. Ap- parently, that's something the Republicans don't understand. Now, we Democrats will plead guilty to building the dams. And as far as washing the dishes is concerned, we've made a lot of progress on that, too. We have made it possible for the housewives to get cheap elec- tricity so they can afford to have an electric dishwasher to do the dishes, and we have brought electricity to millions of homes that never had it before. And this has been done over the violent opposition of the Republicans and the utility companies who are partners. [Voice: Pour it on 'em, Harry.] Don't you think I won't! I want to make this perfectly clear. No 660 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [271] one can accuse the Republican Party of doing anything to help the housewife wash the dishes. They just don't believe in that kind of thing. The Republican candidate in his Boise speech made it clear that he has accepted the Old Guard view that the dams like Hungry Horse — and Government transmission lines, and low-cost public power — are a part of what they call socialism. Well, I would like to say to the Republican candidate that public power in this country is just as much a part of the American system as the public schools, the municipal water- works, the public post office, or the national forests. They are all socialism, according to Republicans. In America, the people do through the Government those things that can only be done through the Government. And we don't let propaganda about socialism scare us into failing to develop our resources. A system of river development which serves many purposes — reclamation, flood control, power generation, transportation, recreation — by its very nature can not be done by private enterprise. Hungry Horse Dam has not been designed to operate as an isolated unit — but rather as a part of a river system. By operating jointly with Grand Coulee and other dams, water stored at Hungry Horse will increase by nearly one-half million kilowatts the capacity of other powerplants in the Columbia River system. This is in addition to the power which will be produced at Hungry Horse itself. This dam will also contribute materially toward controlling floods on the Columbia River and its tributaries. It will make pos- sible, ultimately, the irrigation of additional land in the Flathead Valley. And it will help navigation on the Columbia River. Now, you have in this great Northwest what I call a Northwest power pool. We have a Southwest power pool, centered around Boulder Dam. We have a Central power pool, centered around those dams on the Red River and the dams in northwest Arkansas, which I dedicated the other day. And in connection with TVA and the dams in South Carolina and Georgia, we have a Southeast power pool. And I have been trying to persuade the mossbacks in the Northeast part of the country that they ought to have a Northeast power pool centered on the St. Lawrence River and the Bay of Fundy project. But I can't get them to do it for the simple reason that the New Eng- land power company and the railroads have prevented it. I am making a statement of fact now, and I'll stand behind it, and I'm not on the Senate floor claiming immunity for anything. Now, all of the benefits of this great North- west power pool are encompassed in this single structure. It stands as a symbol of our long-range program for multiple power development of the Columbia River drainage basin. Obviously, no private power company can or should undertake this kind of regional de- velopment. But the private power monop- olists don't want the Government to do it either. Back in 1945, when the appropriation for Hungry Horse was up for consideration in the Congress, the Montana Power Company sent its chief engineer down to Washington to fight against it. He told a Senate committee that Hungry Horse Dam was not justified and ought not to be built. He said there was no market in Montana for power — can you beat that? — that the Montana Power Company could carry all the load there was, and that he didn't think there ever would be a shortage of power out here. Now I had one time an old man who was the head of the Aluminum Company of America before my committee, when I had what they called a Truman investigating committee in the Senate, and at that time the total production of aluminum in the United States was about 300 million pounds. And that old man sat before me and said 300 mil- lion pounds of aluminum would be all we 55-672—66- -45 66l [271] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents would ever need, and the Aluminum Com- pany of America could make all that was necessary. Well, we broke that up very well. We are producing now over 4,000 million pounds of aluminum in America, and still we are short. That's how forward-looking these monopo- lists get, you see. Now how foolish that blind, selfish opposi- tion looks today. One brandnew heavy- industry plant — a chemical plant at Silver Bow — has already been built, to operate on Hungry Horse electric power. A major aluminum plant is to be built near Kalispell, and it, too, will use Hungry Horse electricity. Now industry is coming in, in other words, before the dam is even finished. When we were trying to build Grand Coulee, I was in the Senate, and I never heard as much poppycock in my life as these same fellows that worked with the Montana Power Company and the Pacific Power Com- pany and all that monopoly over there at that time came in and said Grand Coulee would do no good, except for prairie dogs and groundhogs and sagebrush and jack- rabbits. Well, well, well — I wish you would go over and look at Grand Coulee now and see what they are doing. And that's just what will happen under this dam. There isn't the slightest doubt that this electricity will be used, that you people will get new production and new jobs and new prosperity out of it, and that your Govern- ment will be repaid every cent the dam has cost, with interest. That's a self -liquidating project. But if these special interests and monopo- lists had had their way, neither this nor any other of these great Federal dams out here would ever have been built. And neither would the TVA ever have been established when they built that great project down there. Do you know that the slogan "creeping socialism" was actually started by the private power monopoly? I'll tell you something about how that slogan was invented. The utilities spent a lot of money figuring it out. They hired the public opinion ex- perts and the pollsters to do research for them. And these experts came back and told them that the great majority of the people of this country really like public power. Of course they do. The people approve of proj- ects like Grand Coulee and Bonneville and Shasta; the people are convinced that they get more electricity — and get it cheaper — through the public power program than they do when they are left to the tender mercies of the utilities. The monopolists weren't happy when they heard these things. But the experts gave them a tip. They said they had found out one more thing about public opinion — one other thing which everybody already knew — namely, that we Americans don't like socialism. That was the cue, and that was how this present propaganda campaign happened to be born. The monopolists can't attack pub- lic power directly, because they know the people like it. So they attack socialism, which the people don't like. And today they are spending millions of dollars to warn you against socialism. They are working through all kinds of trade associations and "front" organizations, buying radio time, flooding newspapers and magazines with ex- pensive advertisements, putting out canned speeches and editorials whenever they can find the audience. And they are taking tax privileges by doing that very thing, and all that cost goes to the users of monopolistic power when they pay their electric light and power bills. You don't think of that. Now why are they doing all that? Be- cause they want to make you believe that public power — which you know is good — is really socialism in disguise. Well, if that's socialism in disguise, I'm for it. If they can make you swallow that, then the monopolies have got you — and you won't get any more cheap electricity. They persuaded some people to swallow it. Between June, when the Republican candidate for President visited Boulder Dam, 662 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. [271] and August, when he went to Boise, they got him to swallow it hook, line, and sinker. Of course, the Republican Party had al- ready swallowed that — hook, line, and sinker — a long time ago. And their new- found candidate appeared at Boise and said that he was in the Republican policy corner on public power. The Republican Party has a long record on public power and I'm here to tell you it's all bad. Over and over again, a majority of its Members in Congress have tried to keep dams like this from being built. The Re- publican Party has tried to hamstring Federal power projects by depriving them of money. It has tried to prevent the building of trans- mission lines that are needed if the people are actually to get the benefit of the low-cost electric power these great rivers develop. The Republicans had a chance to show their interest in developing our river re- sources during that good-for-nothing 8oth Congress. For 2 years in that Congress, they had control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. During that period, they took one positive action. It is the one positive accomplish- ment of the Republican Party, in respect to public power, in 20 long years of opposition. They passed a special act of Congress to change the name of Boulder Dam to Hoover Dam. Now let's take a look at the record of the Democratic Party, in contrast. The Demo- cratic program for the development of our river systems for reclamation, for power and industrial growth have given new life to this great area of our Nation. Before our program for development of the Columbia River system got under way, the Northwest was a sort of colony for East- ern finance and industry. It lived by its timber, its farms — when they could get prices enough to get the stuff to market — its mineral deposits and its fisheries, and none of them could be expanded much beyond the existing capacities at that time. Then these great reclamation and public power works began to come into operation. And what happened? The people no longer had to depend on private power monopolies for a trickle of electric energy, which came in small quanti- ties at high prices — and that was economic dependency and remote control for you, if I ever heard of it. Instead, the people of the Northwest gradually began to reap the bene- fits of the enormous blocks of low-cost power produced at Bonneville and Grand Coulee. Where there had been no industry to speak of, an industrial giant has gone into being. Abundant low-cost power brought alumi- num industry to the Northwest. Industrial opportunities were opened up all the way from the Continental Divide to the Pacific, also. In 1939, no aluminum was produced in the Northwest; last year, the five reduction plants here produced 364,000 tons — not pounds, tons — worth more than $130 mil- lion— 44 percent of the Nation's total out- put of this vital metal. And if we had listened to the Aluminum Company of America, it wouldn't have been done. Aluminum is only part of the story, of course. The whole face of the land in the Northwest was transformed. During the decade from 1940 to 1950, this part of the country increased its population by 33 per- cent— well over twice the rate of increase for the country as a whole. And as I came across from the train to the dam this morn- ing, and from the dam here, I could see that the population was well on the increase, for I never saw so many children in my life. And they were nice-looking children, too. Now, this development got new farms and a greater farm production, because of the irrigation works which the Federal dams made possible. It got a sounder economy > with flood control and navigation benefits. It gained a whole new industrial and agricultural empire. Instead of being a region where the peo- ple were desperately trying to hang on to what they had, and wondering anxiously what sort of future they could look forward 663 [271] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents to, it became one of the most progressive, prosperous, and forward-looking parts of the whole Nation. And the Governor just told me a pitiful tale as I came over here. He said he had run across one Montana farmer who was in such a bad fix he had to wash his own Cadillac. In every way that you can imagine, the Northwest is a richer and happier, more productive and more independent region than it was before these dams were built. And what do the Republicans say about it? They just repeat their old threadbare slogan of "creeping socialism." And their candidate brushes it all off with a wisecrack about the Government doing everything but wash the housewives' dishes. I don't believe you'll let them brush it off quite that easily. The Republican candidate said something else at Boise that you ought to look at very carefully. "The Government," he said, "will tell you how to distribute power." Now, just what did he mean by that? I think maybe you people can guess. You know, this low-cost power your dams produce won't help you very much if the private monopolies had full control over its distribution. That's the heart of the strug- gle in the Congress today. We have been able to build these dams despite the opposi- tion of these monopolies. But they can still win everything they want, they can get ex- clusive rights over the transmission and sale of power. And that's just what they're try- ing to do right now. I know, for I have had lobbyist after lobbyist come and talk to me about it. And I tell them there's 150 million people in this country who can't afford to hire a lobbyist to go to Washington to put things through the Congress and then pester the President to sign the bills. But that 150 million people have one lobbyist and he sits at the President's desk, and as long as I am there, I am representing that 150 million people. And, my friends, that is the kind of man you want to put in the White House. When he takes that oath on January the 20th you 664 want him to be there to represent the whole population of this country, and not these lobbyists and special interests — and Adlai Stevenson is that kind of man. With the help of the Republican Party, they are trying to bar the Government from building transmission lines in any area served by a private utility which has a "wheeling agreement" with the Government. They are trying to do this regardless of any savings that might be made in building the line. And, of course, if the Government is pro- hibited from building any transmission lines, the utility can charge its own price for any "wheeling agreement" it makes. It has your Government, and all the users of power, over a barrel. Now, don't get yourselves over a barrel by putting somebody in the White House that will let them do that. That's why you hear these attacks on Gov- ernment transmission lines. Beaten on one front, the power monopolists are trying to open up another one. And the Republican candidate's statement that the Government tries to tell you how to distribute your power cannot possibly mean anything on earth ex- cept that the General has adopted the line of the private power lobby. The General has had a lot to say about economy and waste. I say it would be an immoral and terrible waste of the people's assets to reverse this electric power program. These great rivers flow down to the sea, in Democratic and Republican administra- tions alike. Haven't had much chance to flow in a Republican administration for the past 20 years, and I hope they won't have much of a chance to flow in the next 20. What greater waste can there be than to limit our supply of electric energy, and condemn ourselves to pay a monopolist's price for it, when the means of getting more electricity and getting it more cheaply lie right at hand? The people have invested their money in these projects — Grand Coulee, Bonneville, Hungry Horse, and all the rest. The men behind the Republican candidates would like to see the benefits of those projects Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [272] turned over to the private power crowd, and they'd like to prevent us from building any more of them, unless it was for the profit of some corporation. Has the Republican candidate reflected on the waste that would be involved in that and what it would cost the common everyday man? I don't believe he has thought about it. Beware of electing a party whose whole philosophy is that special private interests have claims greater than the public interest. In the logo's, the Republican Party openly, and for 12 years, operated on the theory that the big corporate interests of this country were the only interests to be guarded and protected. For 12 years, the Republican administra- tion tried to peddle off to the highest bidder the magnificent public asset which later be- came TVA. It let the big manufacturers write tariff laws and the big campaign con- tributors write tax laws. It was willing to bail out the banks and the railroads when an economic depression came, but it stead- fastly refused to spend a cent to help the farmers and the wage earners who were out of work and in actual need of something to eat. The Democratic Party has a philosophy of serving all the people. It has a philosophy of developing a Nation's resources for the benefit of all the people. Perhaps that is what the Republican candidate meant when he talked about the "philosophy of the left." He can call it what he pleases, but the Demo- cratic Party is going to keep right on serving all the people instead of the special interests. And the Democratic Party has as its candi- date a man of rare ability and vision. Gov- ernor Stevenson spoke at Seattle last month about the development of the West. You who heard or read his speech know that he will continue to fight your battle for the de- velopment of your resources and your interest. So today we dedicate Hungry Horse Dam to the task of transforming falling water into the blessings for mankind. It takes its place among the other giants of the American West — Boulder, Bonneville, Grand Coulee, Shasta — the giants with whose help the peo- ple of the United States are creating a rich new industrial and agricultural empire. It belongs to you and to every man, wom- an, and child in our country. If you stand guard with vigilance against those who would take it from you, it will remain as an everlasting source of wealth for us all. And now, in order to be sure that you do that, you will go to the polls in November and you will vote for your own interests and against the special interests, and in order to do that, you certainly must vote the Demo- cratic ticket. note: The President spoke at 11:05 a«m« at the site of the new dam near Kalispell, Mont. During his address he referred to Governor John W. Bonner, Representative Mike Mansfield, Democratic candi- date for Senator, and Senator James E. Murray, all of Montana. He also referred to Oscar L. Chap- man, Secretary of the Interior, and Representative W. F. Norrell of Arkansas. 272 Address in Spokane in the Auditorium of the Eagles Lodge. October i, 1952 Senator Magnuson, Governor Mitchell, dis- tinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I have been looking forward to this evening. I have been coming to the State of Wash- ington for a good many years. I know of no better place to get an idea of what the word "progress" means. I like what I see here in this State, and I like what I see here in this auditorium, too. I like thriving farms, and busy industries, the happy and prosperous people. I like to think of the immense advances you have achieved out here in a few short years. I want you to continue those advances. And that is why I am asking you to vote 665 [272] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents this year for a Democratic President and Vice President to carry on the policies that will continue your prosperity. I am asking you to vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. And you can't make a mistake if you do that. These men are dedicated to the programs that have made us strong and prosperous. They are devoted to the cause of the people. They are devoted to world peace. And I am asking you to vote for the Demo- cratic candidates in your State for Governor and Senator and for Congress. In your own interest, vote the whole Dem- ocratic ticket. It is an all-star ticket this year. You have an unusually able candidate for Governor, Hugh Mitchell. As Senator and Congressman, he has done a lot for your State already, and he has won the respect of everybody in Washington, D.C. You have one of the best legislators I know running for the Senate in Scoop Jackson. He is a real leader of the liberal forces in the House of Representatives. In experience and ability, he stands at the top. In Don Magnuson you have a man who has already proved he will work and sacri- fice for the cause of justice and humanity. And by the way, that name, Magnuson, al- ready stands for something fine and progres- sive in the United States Senate. You have another progressive candidate, who understands the needs and problems of this area, in Robert Dellwo. Now you have an excellent State ticket from top to bottom, and along with the national ticket I just don't see how you can do anything else but vote the Democratic ticket. So vote to put this all-star team to work for you, and back up Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman in their fight for your pros- perity and welfare. Now, I want to talk to you about that prosperity, and what the Government has to do with it. Your prosperity out here is an example of what is happening throughout the whole country. Everywhere people are better housed, better fed, better clothed, and en- joying more leisure than ever before. Every- where the people are busily at work, con- tributing to the Nation's strength and welfare. The only people who don't take any satis- faction in the Nation's well-being are the Republican politicians. You know, they say that none of it is real. They say it's just a reflection in a mirror, and that you are not prosperous at all. You haven't got what you have got — it has gone somewhere else; and you are in a bad fix and you ought to vote the Republican ticket. If you believe that, you ought to have your head examined. You have heard these doubting Thomases and false prophets before. They are the same fellows who called your Grand Coulee development "a useless pyramid"; and said it was a "power in the desert." They are the same people who said back in 1936 up in the Grand Coulee country there's no one to sell power to except the coyotes and jack- rabbits and there never will be. My, how much crow they have had to eat! And I'm still feeding it to 'em. Today they are talk- ing the same way about our country's econ- omy. They can't see any future in it. Their attack is aimed especially at me, and I am going to answer them. And believe me, I will enjoy it. And I don't think they will. My administration has been criticized for a lot of things, and some of it may be justi- fied— but I doubt it. In one respect, how- ever, I will yield to no administration in the history of the country; and that is the way we have created the basis of sound prosperity for all the people — all the people, not just a few. It has been my guiding principle that this country can be true to its promise, and lead the world to freedom and peace, only if it has continued and wide prosperity at home. In his Chicago acceptance speech, the Republican candidate for President paid an unconscious tribute to the Democratic Party. He said, and I quote: "We are now at the 666 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [272] moment in history when under God, this Nation of ours has become the mightiest temporal power and the mightiest spiritual force on earth." I couldn't have put that as eloquently myself. It's a truthful descrip- tion of America after 20 years of Democratic administrations. The Republican candidate said that before the special interest groups got control of him. He isn't talking like that now. He has seen Taft. Now that the snollygosters have taken over, we are hearing other kinds of talk. The words have an old familiar ring. They have been served up to frighten people in every presidential election that I can remember. Words like "government deficits" and "na- tional bankruptcy" are the favorites again. Stale Republican lies, just as usual. The truth is that during the past 6 fiscal years — the past 6 fiscal years, which ended June 30th, this year, the Government has more than paid its way. We have produced a budget surplus of nearly $4 billion and we have reduced the public debt. Now, a lot of you may be surprised. But that's the truth. You'd never guess it by reading the papers — especially if you read that second worst paper in the United States, the Spokesman-Review. That paper never told the truth in politics in its life, and it wouldn't know the truth if it met it coming down the road. I am afraid that the future historians will have something to say about Harry Truman, and one of the things is that he is one of those old-fashioned fellows that believes in bal- ancing the budget. But you never saw that in your hometown paper. Now here's something else the snolly- gosters are talking about. They're saying taxes are too high, that they are destroying us, that we can't afford our defense program. The answer to that is very simple. If we really want to destroy ourselves, the way to do it is to encourage the aggressors to think that we cannot afford what it takes to stop them. Can you imagine a greater invitation to the Kremlin, than to announce that we can't pay for more than so much na- tional defense? That's the craziest idea I ever heard of. Our taxes are high because that is what it takes to make us stronger, and to build our defenses. We could have taken the easy road and done nothing about Korea. That would have been nice and cheap — and fatal. We could have taken another easy road, too, and tried to build defenses without taxes. That would have meant going into debt for our defense and inviting runaway inflation. That wasn't my way of doing it. I have always believed in paying for what I get. And when we decided to pay as we go, we again could have taken the easy road, and slapped the cost on the little fellow by using a general sales tax. That's what a lot of Republicans wanted to do. Instead, we did the decent American thing — we spread these costs through income and profits taxes in accordance with ability to pay. The cost of defense comes high. Modern military equipment is expensive. A fighter plane now costs more than a bomber did in the Second World War. And the modern up-to-date bomber costs as much as a battle- ship did in the Second World War. The Republicans know, but don't bother to tell you, that in our present $79 billion Federal budget, civilian activities cost less than $10 billion, and that we have kept them down below that figure for over 4 years. They don't tell you that. They don't tell you that. More than 75 percent of the Fed- eral budget goes for the payment of past wars, and to keep us out of an anticipated third world war. This $10 billion pays for everything your Government is spending for all civilian activ- ities, from the largest to the smallest. To put it another way, this 10 billion is less than 4 percent of the present income of the American people. This 4 percent is all that we would save if we stopped every Fed- eral activity that is not related to national 667 [272] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents security. Yet these fellows who want to misrepresent the facts will tell you that the budget can be balanced from the civilian ex- penditures. And it's just a damn lie. We could save another 4 percent by refus- ing to take care of the veterans and by reneg- ing on the public debt. You know we can't do that. And they know we can't do it, too. All the rest of our tax bill goes to pay for defense. And to say that you can cut our defense expenditures $10 or $20 billion next year is just sheer poppycock of the lowest demagoguery kind. I also hear a lot of talk about taxes being so high that they are driving business to the wall and killing incentives. The truth which they don't tell you is that business profits even after taxes are almost quadrupled in the past 12 years. Never has America had so many new businesses and so much incentive to expand and invest. We all enjoy thinking about the things we could do with the tax money we would save if defense costs were cut back. Well, with God's help and in time, we will come to that, too. But to cut our defense program now would undo most of our efforts to build security. The loss of freedom is too high a price to pay for tax relief. Now, these birds, after softening us up with the sad story of taxes, the Republican snollygosters feel that we are ripe for the next point — and that's their story about the high cost of living. They carefully take no responsibility for it to themselves. It re- minds me of the campaigns in the 1930's, when they charged the Democrats with creat- ing the Republican depression. In 1948, 1 told the people from one end of this country to the other that we were suffer- ing high prices because the Republicans killed price controls. Now, my friends, that's what they tried to do again this year. They don't want price controls. In the last session of Congress, they all but wrecked the limited price con- trols we were able to squeeze through in 1 95 1. In fact, in the House of Representa- tives they voted to abolish them. Don't let anybody tell you the Republicans are for holding down prices. The first thing they would do, if they were elected, would be to remove all price controls and let every- thing that the common, everyday man has to buy go sky high. Despite the Republican obstruction, we have been able to keep some controls and to produce enough goods to keep prices from going through the roof. The prosperity we have today — in spite of necessarily high taxes and unnecessarily high prices — has deep roots. The Republicans are claiming that it is only a war-boom pros- perity. But this is not so either. We Democrats have demonstrated over 20 years, that the way to sound and continu- ing prosperity is through steady employment at good wages and large farm output at fair prices. With these basic conditions main- tained, businessmen have had the most stable and profitable markets they have ever known. This is a far cry from the trickle-down theory of that great Republican era of the i92o's. The theory then was that the poor would always be with us and that they should exist on what trickled down from the rich — for whom the Republican administrations served as a board of directors. Now, I was over in Montana all day today, and the Gov- ernor of Montana told me that the Mon- tana people, particularly the farmers, were more prosperous than they had ever been in their history. And he had a sad case to re- late to me, in which he said a farmer had come to him and told him that he was in such a hard fix that he had to wash his own Cadillac. Many people in this country are now eat- ing regularly. They are not ashamed of the clothes they wear, and after a 40-hour week (with overtime if they want to), they can return to their own homes, secure from the fear that the sheriff might knock at the door. This is the kind of country Americans 668 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 1 [272] want! This is the kind of country they were destined to make for themselves. We have had to take a lot of hard knocks in bringing these conditions about. But when I leave the White House next January, I shall carry with me the conviction that we have achieved a firm basis for continuing prosperity — and all this in the face of un- relenting Republican obstruction. As I see it, we Democrats differ from the Old Guard Republicans in that we believe — and they deny — these three fundamental propositions: First, that prosperity is the right of all the people. Second, that to make the American people prosperous, we must improve the lot of all the people in relation to the privileged few. Third, that America's continued strength rests on the spirit and economic health of all her people and on their confidence in the future. Those are the three things on which the fundamental basis of the prosperity of this country rests. There is nothing in my philosophy of life stronger than my belief in the common man. I truly believe he was intended to share in all the fruits of God's blessings. Free enterprise, as we Democrats under- stand it, is not limited to political royalists and vested interests. It is the opportunity for those in the ranks of labor, in farming, or in business, to raise their families in dignity, to provide their children with op- portunities, to rise to leadership, and to render public service. That is the right of every man, woman, and child in this country. We have made much progress in the last 20 years, but it wasn't accomplished over- night. Our path has been marked by many a battle, by anxious moments, and many heartaches and setbacks. And much remains to be done. The fact that we have achieved something substantial and enduring is now recognized by the whole world. They come to us from across the seas to learn how we did it, and how they can rebuild their own lives in the image of the United States. They derive inspiration from what Americans have done for themselves. But in this election year we are being told that none of this is true. The Republicans are telling us that the system which operates in the spirit of the common people is fraught with danger. They tell us that we must put it aside, for it will lead to our destruction. They have been telling us that for a generation. But the faith we have in our- selves is too strong to be frightened. And after meeting each challenge we have gained more strength. I'll never understand why the Republican Old Guard persists in underestimating the American people; why it remains out of step with the forward progress of the country. It looks as if the more the country gives these Republicans and the better it treats them, the more eager they are to sell it short — but always at a profit for themselves. Take my word for it, the Republican tories haven't changed a bit; they believe now what they believed 20 or 30 years ago. It's my firm conviction that the Republican Party basically distrusts the common people; that it wants to restore the social and eco- nomic differences we have narrowed by the New Deal and the Fair Deal. Republicans — the Old Guard Republicans, and they are in control of the Republican Party, there's no doubt about that — believe that the way to handle a depression is to let nature take its course. They believed in xg^o — and many believe today — that depres- sion is good for us. They like it because it brings down wages and prices, and because it weeds out what they call the "inefficient" businessman. Now, there are many fine Republicans! I know a lot of them. There had to be or there wouldn't have been so many voting for us these last years! As individuals I know many fine Republican citizens. I have had some of them helping me in Washington. But when they get together as a party to de- cide how to run the country, they simply 55-672—66- -46 669 [272] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents can't think beyond their own pocketbooks. So they always recommend policies that would wreck the whole prosperity, to help just a few. When the time comes that the Republican Party places the interests of all the people above special privilege, then, and only then, will there be two parties in which we can have confidence. Only then will you have a real choice. Many Republicans have tried to change the policies of their party and restore it to the integrity which Abraham Lincoln gave it. But Lincoln Republicans have lost ground. In fact, they are almost extinct. The rulers of the Republican Party long ago repudiated everything Abraham Lincoln stood for, ex- cept his sense of humor — and now they are trying to repudiate that. I honestly and truly believe that this coun- try needs an enlightened Republican Party. I am sorry to see the abject surrender of their presidential candidate to the reactionary, vindictive wing of the Old Guard. If we had an enlightened Republican Party, we could bury the useless controversy of whether the progressive measures of the New Deal and the Fair Deal have been good for the country. And then we could go on to more up-to-date issues. But we don't have that kind of Republican Party. Neither the Republican platform nor their candidate reveals the slightest un- derstanding of the basis of our prosperity, or how to go about preserving it. Only those with sympathy for humanity can preserve and expand the economic liberty and fullness of the life that we have attained. I am proud of the scars I have received in this office. I know I have received them be- cause I have been fighting for the people. That fight must be carried on. But it needs more youth than I possess. In Governor Stevenson, you have a man who combines humanity and humility. He has youth, he has experience, he has com- passion, and he' has the courage to preserve and improve the program that has served America so well. With him, our hard-won system of prosperity and security will be made safe. This election presents us with a choice be- tween all we have learned about our economy over the last 20 years, and the discredited theories of the Old Guard. The future hangs on that choice. Now, I have said ever since I started out on this campaign, that you are the govern- ment. By the Constitution, the power of government rests in the people. You have a right to exercise your authority when you go to the polls. When you vote for people who believe in the welfare of the whole Na- tion, who believe that every man has equal rights, that every man has a right to the things that are good in this world, if he has the ability to get them, then the country will be safe. But it is your responsibility. On election day, if you go to the polls and vote against your own interests, you will get what you deserve. Now, I am asking you, when I retire from public office, I want to feel confident — and I am asking you — I want to feel confident that things will go forward. And I am asking you to go to the polls and vote for your own protection. Vote for your, own good. Vote for the welfare of this great Nation. Vote for the peace of the world, by voting a straight Democratic ticket. note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. in the audi- torium of the Eagles Lodge at Spokane, Wash. In his opening words he referred to Senator Warren G. Magnuson, and Representative Hugh B. Mitchell, Democratic candidate for Governor, both of Wash- ington. Later he referred to Representative Henry M. Jackson, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Don Magnuson and Robert Dellwo, Democratic candidates for Representative, all of Washington. 67O Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 1 [273] 273 Address on a Radio Program Sponsored by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Campaign Committee. October 1, 1952 I AM very grateful for that kind introduc- tion by George Jessel and Bette Davis. It is good to have our old friends and new recruits working together this year to elect Adlai Stevenson. I want to talk to you very plainly tonight about the issues in this campaign. This is a year of decision. In this national election, the American people are going to decide for themselves where their country is going in the next 4 years. The way we mark our ballots in No- vember will determine, in large measure, whether we have good times or bad times, whether we have good wages or poor wages, whether we have runaway prices or stable prices, whether we have a strong national de- fense or a weak national defense, whether our children will have opportunities to get ahead, or whether they will face the kind of economic collapse and confusion that we ourselves faced in the early logo's. These are the real issues down beneath all the slogans and the scarewords, the bill- boards, the advertising, and the hullabaloo of the campaign. These are the real issues which the American people will be deciding. The American people have the same choice today that they had in 1948, and in the na- tional elections before 1948. It is the choice between the liberal program of the Demo- cratic Party and the pullback program of the Republican Party. Democratic Presidents and Democratic Congresses have worked for 20 years to build a strong economic system and to provide security and freedom for all of our citizens. The results show how successful we have been. We have 62 million jobs today. Our families have 40 percent more real income, after taxes, than we had before World War II. And we have come a long way toward the enjoyment of equal rights by everyone. This progress has been made over the con- sistent opposition of the Republican Party. At almost every step of the way, they have fought against our efforts to improve the condition of the people. The Republican Party opposed our system of social security. The Republican Party opposed the growth of a trade union movement free of employer interference. The Republican Party opposed Federal minimum wage laws. The Repub- lican Party has worked against establishing a system of firm price supports for the farmer. This is the record of the past, and the attitude of the Republican Party has not changed. The Republican Party is still against measures that will benefit the people. Let me give you a few examples. When I spoke to you on this program of the campaign committee of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in 1948, I told you a few of the things that the Demo- cratic Party proposed to do, if we were elected. We carried out those pledges. We did almost all those things. We would have done all of them, if it had not been for Republican opposition. We had to fight the Republicans every step of the way. I told you in 1948 that we should increase the minimum wage from 40 cents an hour to at least 75 cents an hour. We did that. We did it in spite of the fact that about 80 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives tried to block this action, and to limit its effectiveness. In 1948 I told you that social security should be extended, and social security bene- fits should be increased. We did that. We did it in spite of Republican attempts to load on a lot of restrictive and crippling amend- ments. I told you that we should expand our facilities for looking after the Nation's health. We did that. We are building new 671 [273] Oct. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents hospitals and new health centers, and we would have gone even further in improving our system of medical care if it had not been for the opposition of the Republican Party. In 1948 I told you that we should provide aid for slum clearance and low-rent housing. We did that, in spite of the resistance of 80 percent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the diehard opposition of the real estate lobby. I told you in 1948 that we should do some- thing about high prices. In 1950 the Con- gress enacted price control legislation. Since that time we have been fighting, against Republican opposition, to keep effective controls. Time and again, Republican Members of Congress have ganged up to break down the control of prices and the control of rents. Just a few months ago, a majority of the Republican Sena- tors, and almost 60 percent of the Repub- lican Representatives, voted to end all price and wage controls. The Democratic votes in the Congress kept this from happening. During the last few years, this country has lived in the shadow of a terrible danger — the danger of aggression and war. The Democratic Party has risen to meet that dan- ger. It has devised programs and measures to protect this country. But the Republicans in Congress have been hacking away at the appropriations we need to make our defenses strong. Time and again they have voted for less protection — less security for our country. Time and again they have shown that they are more concerned about the danger to their pocket- books than they are about the danger to the life of our Nation. No one should deceive himself about what would happen if there were a Republican victory in November. The Republican Old Guard would take such a victory to mean that they had a blank check to tear down the things that have been built up in spite of their opposition during the last 20 years. That's what they started to do in the 80th Congress, but I was in the White House and I was able to hold them back. If a Repub- lican President were in the White House, the people would have no defense against them. This is the basic issue in the campaign. This is the danger that the American people face. But I am sure the American people are not going to be misled. I am sure they will vote to go forward with the Democratic ticket — to improve upon the gains we have made in the health, welfare, and prosperity of our people. I am sure that they are going to vote for the party which has been out in front, building up our national defenses, strengthening our allies, striving for world peace. I am sure that the American people are going to elect Adlai Stevenson of Illinois as our next President. But just remember one thing: You can't vote unless you have registered. There is still time to register in many of our States. If you haven't registered yet, go out and register tomorrow. Unless you are a regis- tered voter, you can't help your country to choose the path toward progress and peace. note: The President's prerecorded address was broad- cast at 10:15 p.m., e.s.t. The recording had been made in the White House before the start of the President's campaign trip. In his opening remarks the President referred to entertainers Bette Davis and George Jessel. For the President's 1948 address sponsored by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union Cam- paign Committee, see 1948 volume, this series, Item 247. 672 Harry S. Truman, 1952 274 Rear Platform Remarks in Washington. October 2, 1952 Oct. 2 [274] [1.] Ephrata, Washington (Rear plat- form, 8:06 a.m.) I can't tell you how very much I appreciate that welcome you have given me on my re- turn trip to this great country. You see, I have been out here before on several occa- sions. I was here particularly one time on a nonpolitical trip to inspect Grand Coulee. But I am frank to tell you this time I am here on a strictly political mission. I am cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket. You see, as President of the United States I am the head of the Democratic Party and I am anxious to see the good works of the Demo- cratic Party carried on. There are some very fine candidates on this train today. Your own candidates here in Washington. They are just about the best team of good men you could ever hope to find. You have a candidate for auditor named Cliff Yelle. And that's a familiar name back in Missouri and north Arkansas. They are all good people, and if he is as good as those back in that part of the country, you can't do any better than to elect him. And I understand that you have a man running for Congress here in Washington by the name of William Bryan. Well now, one of the greatest orators that ever lived was William J. Bryan, and I was a great admirer of his. I heard him making a speech one time down not far from Inde- pendence, and in those days when the candi- date made a speech out in the country he had to have a voice — he didn't have these things [microphones]. And they made him a platform and he would get above the crowd and then every- body around could hear him. They didn't have any platform, so they wheeled out a manure spreader. And Bryan got up on the manure spreader and said that's the first time I ever made a speech from the Republican platform. You have a candidate for Congressman at Large in this State by the name of Don Mag- nuson. Well, that seems to be a pretty good name here in the great State of Washington. If he is as good as the Magnuson that I am well acquainted with, you will have excel- lent representation in the House of Repre- sentatives if you send Don Magnuson there. I have known Hugh Mitchell a long time. He was in Congress, and he was in the Sen- ate, and he was associated with my good friend Mon Wallgren. And he is a candi- date for Governor in this State, and I hope you will elect him. I believe you will. You should, anyway. Then there is Henry Jackson. I didn't know until this morning that his name was Henry. I always called him "Scoop." He has made a good public servant, and if you send him to the Senate the great State of Washington will have wonderful representa- tion in that body. It is necessary that you should have forward-looking men to repre- sent you in the House and the Senate. The reason that you have these wonderful projects here in this community is because you have forward-looking men in the House and the Senate to help bring them about. And I want to say to you we didn't have much help from the Republicans when we were trying to bring them about, either. Now we have got a national ticket which in my opinion is the best any party has ever offered the voters. Adlai Stevenson is a re- markable new leader. Like Roosevelt, he has had good experience in government, and he has proved himself a real friend of the everyday man. He understands your problems — he showed that when he spoke out here in Seattle. And John Sparkman's the same sort of man. For 15 years in Congress he has been working and voting for things that benefit all the people. And that is what you want to make yourselves familiar with — the rec- 673 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents ord. Don't let anybody come out here and tell you what he has done — make him prove it. I am drawing you the record on these birds, and when the record is shown to you, you can't possibly do anything else but elect the Democrats. You know, I am very much interested in the names of the towns I visit. The name of Ephrata reminds me of the old Bible town in Palestine which was part of the great Fertile Crescent that stretched all the way from the Nile to the Valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. In the old days that was the cradle of civi- lization, because there was an ideal combi- nation of land and water. Now much of that country has become a desert. It is just the opposite here. This country- side was pretty barren, for lack of water. Now we are bringing Columbia River water to this land. This area will blossom and become a great center just like the old Tigris- Euphrates Valley of ancient times. The population of this area has almost doubled in 10 years' time. And I am told that this town is about five times as big as it was 10 years ago. That is just the begin- ning. When this whole Columbia basin project is fully underway, there will be a million acres of new land under cultivation, and the acreage will support a population four times what it is today. And you know what the Republicans said about the construction of that great project? They said there would be nothing but coyotes and prairie dogs in this part of the world, and that if the dam was built it would be in a desert and the desert would stay that way. That is how forward-looking they were. I want you to remember those things when you go to the polls this No- vember. This wonderful development is the kind of thing that should be done over in that old Euphrates region. It can be made into a fertile country once again. And that would help bring peace and prosperity in the whole Middle East. That is what we are trying to get started through our point 4 program — helping peo- ple to help themselves to do what you are doing here with this great self-liquidating project. It is long and slow, but it is the best way to fight communism. Stomach communism, I call it. When people are hungry, why they will take anything to get something to eat. I call this communism, where the people are poor and have nothing to eat and nothing to wear — that is stomach communism. And to bring real peace in the world, that must be overcome. We must clothe them and feed them and get them in the frame of mind where they can do it themselves. And that is what I am trying to do. Now, all this work for progress here, and for peaceful development abroad, has come about because you have had a government that cares about the people, and helps them do the things they can't do by themselves — and a government that wants to have peace in the world. That is how the Democratic administration has tried to run your Govern- ment these last 20 years. That is what really marks the difference between our political parties. The Republican Party doesn't care about the people because it is controlled by big lobbies — the banks, the power companies, the real estate lobby, and all the rest. The main thing they want the Government to do is to help them make a profit for them- selves. And you, the people, have to foot the bill. Remember, it's the Republicans who op- posed Grand Coulee from the start— and Bonneville and Hungry Horse. It's the Re- publicans who are against Hells Canyon and Ice Harbor, now. They are fighting it tooth and toenail. In 1947 and 1948 the Republicans in both Houses voted overwhelmingly, four sep- arate times, to slash the funds for REA and your REA cooperatives. In 1949 a majority of House Republicans voted against even starting the rural telephone system. In 1950 the Republicans in the Senate voted two to one to slash all flood control work in half. 674 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 2 [274] In 1 95 1 the majority of Republicans in Congress voted to scrap our national power policy so the power companies could get a rakeoff on the transmission of public power. And so it goes, year after year, not just on these things but on housing, social se- curity, farm programs, and all the rest. And now I am reading you the record. You can read it for yourselves, if you get the Congressional Record and take the time to do it. The Congressional Record is printed in a most unreasonable form. It is full of speeches by Congressmen and Senators, but every once in a while you will run across the place where the vote is set down and the record is made on what these people thought about what was before the Congress. And when you read that vote you will find that the Republicans as a whole, in a majority of the cases, always voted against the people. That is what I want you to get into your heads. And if you do that, no amount of hooey that these birds put out will fool you when the election is over. I don't think you want to put a party in control of the Government that has the kind of record the Republicans have. You peo- ple are the Government. You can vote for your own interests and get the kind of gov- ernment that you want. And when you don't go to the polls and vote, and when you vote wrong at the polls, you get just what you deserve: you get bad government. And I am asking you to go to the polls, after you have studied those records — get that fine print and read it — and you will find out that your interest has been in the hands of the party that is now in power. I want to tell you that when that good-for- nothing 80th Congress was in control — when I made that campaign in 1948 — if you hadn't had a Democratic President in the White House, you would have been ruined by now. You never would have gotten these developments and things done that I am telling you about. And you want to go to the polls on the 4th day of November, and remember that you are the Government, that your interest is at stake, the interests of the whole Nation, the peace of the world — they are at stake. If you take all those things into considera- tion, you will go there and you will vote the straight Democratic ticket and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you a lot. [2.] Wenatchee, Washington (Rear plat- form, 10:25 a.m.) My goodness alive, is anybody left at home in the great State of Washington? It looks like they are all here. I am more than glad to be with you this morning. When I was here 4 years ago you just had had a bad flood. I am glad things look so good around here now, including your famous apple trees. You may have heard a rumor about why I am here. Well, I will tell you the facts so it won't be a rumor. I am out here cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket. That is one of my jobs. I have five altogether, any one of which is enough for one man to do, so I have to work about 17 to 18 hours a day, and therefore I am working in sections. Now I am working at the job as the head of the Democratic Party, trying to tell you what the Democratic Party stands for, what it has done for the country. And Governor Stevenson will tell you what it proposes to do for the country. And between us, I think we are going to convince you that it will be right to vote the ticket. I don't believe you could do better with the Democratic ticket than the slate of candidates which you have now up for election in the great State of Washington. I have been rid- ing with them most of the morning, and I am personally acquainted with a great many of them. I don't think you could do better than to have Mr. Jack Taylor for land com- missioner, Phil Gallager for the treasurer, Bob Dellwo for Congressman, and Don Magnuson for Congressman at Large, Hugh Mitchell for Governor, and Scoop Jackson for United States Senator. You know, I have been handicapped to 675 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents some extent during my term as President of the United States because the Members of Congress — a great many of them — are against the things that the Democratic Party stands for. But in spite of all that, we have been able to get things through that have been for the welfare of the world and the benefit of the country and for the benefit of the individual in the United States. I want that to continue and I think you do — and in order to do that I want you to see that our national ticket is elected this time, just as you saw to it in 1948. Adlai Stevenson is a very fine man. He is a great Governor, and he will make a great President. He is a man you all can trust to work for you. He understands the problems of the West, and the problems of the plain people everywhere. That is true of John Sparkman. No man in the Senate has done more for small busi- ness, for the farm program, and for power development than has John Sparkman. I can't come to Wenatchee without think- ing about Rufus Woods. That man had a great understanding, a great vision of the whole Northwest, and what a wonderful region this would come to be. He dreamed that dream long before anybody started out to put it into effect. We have started to work now on the things he dreamed about. We are on the way, and we owe a lot of it to Woods' hard work. This country is growing mightily — your agriculture is doing fine. And look at your new industry — the Alcoa aluminum plant you have here, and this was made possible because your own public utility district added 200 percent to the power output of Rock Island Dam. This is a symbol of the new Northwest that Rufus Woods was working for. You people know what is making Wash- ington State develop, you know what is needed to keep it growing — bringing more industry and more trade. And that requires more electric power. More power is the cry- ing need, and water on the barren lands is a crying need. If you get the right amounts of power and water at the right price — par- ticularly at the right price — the whole area will boom beyond anything you can imagine. And if you don't get these things, your growth will be stunted. They tell me that both here and in Spokane these days, men have been laid off the job in the aluminum industry for lack of power. That is what this whole region faces, if you don't move forward — and move forward fast. Now, that is a common need for the whole Northwest, from the Rockies to the coast. And the only way to meet that need is through a common program, an integrated program, to make the best use of your sources of power and of water, and harness the rivers of this region so they will work for you. Behind Bonneville we needed Grand Coulee. Behind Grand Coulee we needed Hungry Horse. And we still must have Hells Canyon and Ice Harbor and Libby — and all the other dams and power generators and irrigation works. These must all tie together in a great power network — trans- mission lines that will bring the power from these dams to your homes, and farms, and cities, and factories, where it is needed and when it is needed, in the right amounts and at the right price. Let me emphasize that right price. Now it stands to reason that you people, as individuals, can't get these things done by yourselves. And your city government and your State can't give you all the help you need — their jurisdiction and resources are too small — the problem is too big. It is a re- gional problem, and the regional power pool in this section of the world has made more contribution to its prosperity than any other one thing, including the discovery of gold and silver west of the Rocky Mountains. And it's the development of these great power resources that has made this part of the country prosperous — and the TVA and all the rest of the country. And I have been trying to get those power pools established all over the country. And in every instance 676 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. [274] I have been fought to a standstill by the Republicans in the Congress of the United States. And that is why you look to the Federal Government for help. It is your Govern- ment, and that is its job — to help you do the things you can't do all by yourselves. We have been giving you help — the New Deal and the Fair Deal have been helping you for 20 years — and you have helped the country in aluminum and plutonium for na- tional defense. You have helped the pros- perity of the whole Nation. I am tremen- dously proud of the whole business. And that's the reason I am out here going from one end of the country to the other working with every bit of energy I have to see that the Democrats continue in power. And I think they will. We have worked with you, and we have helped to meet your basic needs for power and for water. And we have helped this region in many other ways — our farm pro- gram, our housing program, social security, and minimum wages, and all the rest. These things are helping to balance out your whole economy up here, to put a floor under your prosperity, and to make life easier and better for the everyday citizen of the whole country. Now you and I know that there is a lot left to do. There are lots of dams and power- lines yet to be built. We have only begun this development. There are new factories and businesses to be helped into production, schools and hospitals and homes to take care of the people who will work in them. Your farmers need protection against the great ups and downs in the prices for their produce. That is why we have been trying to work out some method for supporting perishables. And school kids all over the country need more of those fine apples you grow up here. These are the things for you to do, and for your Government to help you do, where the help is needed. That brings me to one of the big questions at issue in this election. Will we go on with the kind of government which gives that help, or will we get the kind which turns its back upon the people? I tell you this, every bit of progress you have made will be in danger, if the Republicans take over the country once again. And your hopes for the future might as well be laid aside. You can't trust the Republicans. They will not help you. They will not help you. They never have helped you. They only help themselves and the special privilege boys, they've done it every time. I say this because I know it is true, be- cause I have read the Republican record in the Congress— where it counts. And I know how they act and what they do. And I have been spelling out that story every chance I get. And I am going to keep on doing it until I run them into the brush. There is something else I want to say. A political party that cannot be trusted to work for prosperity at home cannot be trusted to work for peace abroad. Those who do not care about the people's welfare are not safe custodians of the Nation's welfare. Think that over. Go home and think it over very carefully. Think of where your interests lie. Think of your families and your children. Give some thought to what the Republicans are offering this year. Think of those Old Guard faces surrounding the five-star candidate they have got. They have got him surrounded so he couldn't do a thing he wanted to if he tried. If he goes back there with a Republican Congress, just as sure as you are standing here, they will try their best to turn the clock back to 1896. And we can't afford to have that done. Now, when you have thought this all over, vote the Republican ticket if you want to go backwards. If you want to go forward you had better go along with me and help the country go where it ought to. Now I see a kid back there who has been paid to carry that "I Like Ike" sign. Well, I like Ike— I like Ike so well that I would send him back to the Army, if I had the 677 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents chance. And that is what I am trying to do. If you want the welfare of this country to go forward, if you want your own interests properly taken care of, go to the polls on the 4th of November and vote for Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [3.] Skykomish, Washington (Rear plat- form, 1 -.40 p.m.) I am certainly glad to be here again. I remember 4 years ago when the train rolled into town I was sound asleep and my good friend, Mon Wallgren, had to wake me up. But I made it. And I told you then that I would be back and discuss the issues with you at greater length. Traveling through the State of Washing- ton today has been a wonderful experience. From the fine reception I am getting, you would think I was running for office again. But the purpose of my trip is to campaign for the Democratic ticket. I am working hard in this campaign be- cause I know in my heart that the welfare of this great Republic, and the peace of the world, depends on electing the Democratic ticket. I have had a chance to meet some of your fine candidates today, and I am sure you will be voting for your own interests when you vote for Don Magnuson for Congress- man at Large, for John J. O'Connell for the House of Representatives in the 6th District, for Hugh Mitchell for Governor, and for Henry M. Jackson for United States Senator. I understand that you have a wonderful man running for insurance commissioner by the name of William Sullivan. When you go to the polls on November the 4th, just remember these two signs down here on the President's train, and cast your votes for the two finest candidates who have ever run for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. My friends, this Nation of ours is the great- est Republic on the face of the earth. As President of the United States I have worked night and day to bring peace and prosperity to this country. I know you people want to move forward to bring more prosperity to this great Northwest. You can't do that if you turn the country over to the Republicans who are against everything we have tried to do to develop the rivers and resources of the Northwest. You can't do it if you turn the Govern- ment over to a five-star general who doesn't understand the workings of government, or the policies which have helped the North- west. The Republican candidate for Presi- dent has a military mind which simply does not understand these things. He is a good soldier, and I appointed him to some of the most important posts as a soldier. But when he gets into the field of politics and civilian control of the Govern- ment, he's just a babe in the woods. In fact, he's a babe in the hands of Robert Taft. I like him very much, and he is a very able military man, so I hope you will send him back to the Army, and send Adlai Stevenson to the White House. The best thing for you to do in your own interest is to vote the straight Democratic ticket on the 4th day of November, and then you will get what you need and have what you want. Thank you very much. [4.] Snohomish, Washington (Rear plat- form, 3:15p.m.) Thank you very much for that nice wel- come. Thank you. I understand you raise a lot of good things here — good milk cows, and good baseball teams, and good basket- ball players. I wish I could stop and see them all in operation. I expect some of you may have guessed why I am here. I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. I must say it is a privilege and a pleasure to be doing that in the great State of Washington, for you have the finest team of Democratic can- didates anyone could hope for. For Senator, your Henry Jackson — 678 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 2 [274] "Scoop," I call him — could not be improved upon. If you send him to the Senate you will have two very able and distinguished Senators in Warren Magnuson and Scoop Jackson. Hugh Mitchell for Governor is a man of experience. He has been in the Con- gress and the Senate, and I know that he will make you a good Governor. For your Con- gressman at Large Don Magnuson impresses me as a man of ability — and he has a good name, anyway. Now, for the Congressman in this district who has just introduced me — Harry Henson — he will make a wonderful successor to Henry Jackson, and I hope you will send him to the Congress because we need men like that in the House and the Senate, too. Now I want to tell you about the national ticket, Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Adlai Stevenson has been out in this State — some of you may have seen him. I hope all of you read his fine speech at Seattle. He is talking sense to the American people, and he is making sense, too — a lot more sense than his opponent. John Sparkman has been one of our most progressive Senators. Just ask Senator Magnuson about him, he can give you a good reference. These are good men, solid citi- zens, and men you can trust to work for you, for all the plain people, every day in the week. I have got something here I think will in- terest you. It's a copy of a very nice slick Republican magazine called The Farm Journal. Some of you may read it. This is the issue for September 20, 1952. Now, right at the front of this issue there is an editorial. It is a Republican editorial, and it covers the situation in a way that is very, very surprising. It follows the party line of the Republican campaign. It says things are just terrible in this country, the country is going to the dogs, all because of the present administration. "A change is needed," it says, "to rescue the Nation . . . from an administration . . . helplessly lost," . . . "groggy," full of "intrenched in- eptitude"— and so forth and so on — just the usual thing you hear a Republican orator say. This is very interesting. But a little later on, in this same issue, you will get a good illustration of what this "helpless, groggy, inept" administration of mine has done for this country. On page 46 there is an article and its title reads: "What To Do With Surplus Money." It starts off by saying, "For farmers as for many others, the question of what to do with surplus cash is often a problem." Now that certainly sounds like we have got the country in a terrible fix. We have created a new problem for the farmer: what to do with his surplus money. Then this magazine goes on to say: "Every farmer has plenty of uses for cash. He may buy additional land, if this seems neces- sary for more efficient operation, or for an investment. Debts can be reduced or paid off. Life insurance must be maintained, and a reasonable working cash balance kept on hand. His home should be well equipped and comfortable. But after these essentials have been taken care of, the working farmer often has cash remaining that should be earn- ing something." Yes, sir! It sure is a tough life for the farmer after 20 years of helpless Democratic ineptitude! I heard a story over in Montana, told to me by the Governor. He said the farmers over there were in somewhat of a fix. He said he had met one farmer who was in such a bad fix that he had to wash his own Cadillac! Now I don't know whether any of the farmers around here have a problem about what to do with their surplus money or not. But if you do, I can tell you how to solve it. Just elect a Republican President and a Re- publican Congress. They will take care of that problem for you. The first thing you know, you won't have any money at all — surplus or any other kind. All you have to do then is to worry about how you are going to pay the mortgage off before some banker takes the farm away from you. 679 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents They tell me that the Republican candi- date for President has a sign on the back of his train that says, "Look ahead, neigh- bor." I will tell you what I have been telling people: that sign ought to say, "Look out, neighbor." Because if that Republican can- didate is elected, you had better look out for that surplus cash, because as I said awhile ago, you won't have it very long when the Republicans get things going like they want. The best way to take care of that situation, and to keep yourselves in a good fix finan- cially and otherwise, is to look out for your own interests, and look out for the welfare of this great Nation of ours. The proper way to do that is to exercise your prerogative as a voter. The power in this Government of ours is in the voters. It is centered in the voters. And when they exercise their privileges as they should, they can have good government. Well now, you have had good government for 20 years that has been in your interest and your welfare. The best thing for you to do is to continue that situation. And the best way to do it is to go to the polls on the 4th of November and vote the straight Democratic ticket, and then you will have 4 more years of good government and pros- perity and peace. Thank you very much. [5.] Everett, Washington (Rear plat- form, 3:45 p.m.) I certainly appreciate that welcome. Mighty fine. I remember the time I stopped here in 1948, and before that when Mon Wallgren and I used to run an investigating committee in Washington and I was in the Senate. I always enjoyed myself immensely in this wonderful town. I still have the fish- ing rod and reel you gave me in 1948. Next year, you know, I am going to have time to use it. I am here today in my political capacity — if you don't understand what I am doing. I am campaigning for the Democratic ticket. The President has got five jobs, and one of them is as head of the Democratic Party. It is a special pleasure to me to be here in Everett, the hometown of Scoop Jackson — for Scoop will be one of the best Senators this State ever had — or any other State ever had. Now I want to say to you that Washington has had some mighty fine Senators. There's Hugh Mitchell for Governor, just as great a man as it is possible to have for that position, and I know you are going to elect him. And there is Don Magnuson and Harry Henson for Congress, Smith Troy for attor- ney general, and Vic Meyers for lieutenant governor. That is a fine ticket. You know, when I read it — Magnuson, Wallgren, Mag- nuson, and Henson — it sounds like a Swed- ish law firm. I want you to vote for them and for the whole Democratic State ticket. And don't feel that when you are doing that you have done your full duty. You must vote for the national ticket, Adlai Steven- son— as you did for me 4 years ago — for President. He has made a fine record as the Governor of Illinois, and that is the best training there is for a President of the United States. John Sparkman is a fine man, too. Both these men are people you can trust. They will always work for the plain everyday citizen. There is one thing above all else that I want you to do — that I want you to under- stand— while I am on this trip. That is to make sure that you people aren't fooled by all the false stories the Republicans are spread- ing around this country. I have been talk- ing about a number of those phony stories since I have been on this trip. And there is one of them that seems to worry people very much. That's the one about how there's bound to be another depression after our defense job tapers off. The Republicans are trying to make people believe the only thing that holds up our economy is the defense effort. They say we wouldn't have prosperity today if it were not for military spending. That is a terrible idea. And it is terrible that there are politicians who would try to 680 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 2 [274] frighten and upset people with a thing like that. Let me tell you something. That whole business is just a plain political falsehood. Back in Missouri I would call it a little stronger term. The truth is that the prosperity this coun- try is now enjoying is very sound indeed — there is nothing artificial about it. Right now we have a total national pro- duction of over $340 billion — this year. The defense effort is taking something less than one-sixth of our total output. Now get this straight. If it weren't for the defense effort we would be even more prosperous than we are, not less prosperous. The defense effort is making us postpone and put off a great many things we need — things that would make our country even greater than now. Let me give you some examples. Here in the Northwest, especially, we need more power. That calls for a lot more dams like Grand Coulee — and more transmission lines. As fast as we can get those things there will be room for more industry up here. We need more and better roads all over the country, from superhighways down to timber access trails. We need new schools and hospitals in nearly every city and town and hamlet in the country. We are going to need better and cheaper houses for our growing population, and more consumer goods of every kind. Look at television, for example; it has hardly started, yet thousands of businesses are ready right now to bring their factories up-to-date and expand them to meet these new demands. And think of Alaska. We have scarcely begun to develop its great resources. There are all kinds of projects up there that should be undertaken. And those projects will not only help Alaska, they will add to the pros- perity of this area here and will strengthen the whole United States. One thing I am sorry this last Congress did not do was to give Alaska statehood. As soon as we can ease off on defense, all this civilian work will be there for us to do. We all hope defense can be cut, some day, to a lot less than now, but there are plenty of demands — civilian demands — to more than take its place. That means there need be no depression in this country. And there won't be, if you have a government in Wash- ington that understands these things, and will help you start on new production when the right time comes. The Democratic Party can give you that kind of government. That has been proved. We got out of the great depression 20 years ago. And we kept you out of a depression after World War II. That is the first time in history this country has avoided a de- pression after a war. And I might remind you that Korea had nothing to do with it. The danger period for a depression came first in 1946. And then again in 1949. We got past both of those with flying colors, and we were back in boom times well before 1950. But the Republicans are quite right to tell you that there could be a depression. There could be. Perhaps there will be, if they get control of the country. They just don't be- lieve in doing things that must be done to keep this country growing. They got us into the last depression 20 years ago, and there's no sign they wouldn't do it again. They just don't seem to have any concept of progress and growth. They voted re- peatedly against power projects, against reclamation, against housing, and most of the other things that help to make us prosperous. And I have got the record on that, and I can cite chapter and verse if you want to read the fine print in the Congressional Record. Now unfortunately you can't count on the candidate for President to make them any better. He is a general. He has been in the Army 40 years, and that is not very good training for President. That is not a place where you learn much about how our civilian government is run. I know a lot of gen- erals, and most of them are mighty fine men, and so is the head of the Republican ticket. But they know a lot more about spending 681 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents money than they do about making it and increasing the prosperity of this country. Anyway, the Republican candidate seems to have given up to the Republican reaction- aries already, without even a fight. He is in Taft's pocket, and Taft is telling him what to do. Now I like Ike, but I like him in the Army, and that is where he ought to be. My friends, if you want this country to go forward, that is just where you send him next November. That is the way to protect yourselves — to protect your own interests. You are the Government. It is up to you to make the Government work. The power in this Republic of ours is centered in the people, the people I am looking at right now; and when you exercise that power as you should, you have good government. And the best way to get good government, to keep your own interests going, to keep this State prosperous, and to keep the Nation prosper- ous, and to help me to get world peace, is to go to the polls on the 4th of November, look the ticket over and take a Democratic ballot and put your "X" up there in that ring at the top of it, and put it in the box, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [6.] Seattle, Washington (Address at the Eagles Auditorium, 5:35 p.m., see Item 275) [7.] Kent, Washington (Rear platform, 7:07 p.m.) It is easy to see that the Green River Valley is a great place to live. Maybe I'll come back and setde when they throw me out of office. After the warm welcome peo- ple have given me all across the great State of Washington, I almost feel like moving out here. I think maybe I could run for Governor and have some success — if Hugh Mitchell wasn't running. I have met your Democratic candidates — and I know all of them, most of them per- sonally— for the House and the Senate and the Governorship, and I am sure they can do the job themselves and take care of the Re- publicans in November. And that is what I want done. I want the Republicans taken care of in the right way. You have some great people on the Demo- cratic ticket. The gentleman who just in- troduced me, John O'Connell — and Don Magnuson, Henry M. Jackson — I call him Scoop — Hugh Mitchell. I know you people here are concerned about the preventing of floods so you can get new industries here and do the kind of work that is done at the Boeing plant over at Renton. If you elect people like Hugh Mitchell, Scoop Jackson, Don Magnuson, John O'Connell to office, they will help you look after these things, and help you to ex- pand— as the Democratic Party always does. The Republicans want to pull things to- gether and quit. I am proud to be campaigning for these candidates for office, and I hope I helped them with this trip today. My only object in getting into this campaign is my sincere desire to serve the welfare of this great Na- tion. Now, my friends, you are the Govern- ment. The Constitution says that the powers of government shall rest in the people. It is you that says who shall be President, who shall be Vice President, who shall be Gover- nor, who shall be Senator, who shall be Congressman, and who shall fill the other offices that are vacant in this great State this election year. If you don't use your judgment and exer- cise your privilege and prerogative, you have nobody to blame but yourself, if you don't have good government. If you do not do your duty as a voter, if you do not inform yourselves on the situation as it exists, and you get bad government, you get just what you deserve. I have been in politics a long time, and the people who do the most quarreling about government are those who take the least in- terest in seeing that they get the right sort of government. In 1948 only 51 percent of the people exercised their right to vote — and I'll 682 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 2 [274] bet the other 49 percent have been the ones that have been doing all the kicking about the Government. I am going to spend the rest of my life, after I get out of this job of mine, trying to impress upon the young people of this coun- try the fact that they have the greatest gov- ernment in the history of the world — and that is just as true as it can be. They have the greatest country under which the sun has ever shone. And it is up to them to con- tinue that government in the manner in which it has come down to us. We are the leader of the free nations of the world, whether we like it or not — we are the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. There has never been one like it. And I hope every one of you young people who are here tonight will start in right now studying the governments that have existed before this time, and you won't find any single one of them that compares with our own. As the leader of the world, we must ac- cept the responsibility of leadership. We sometimes think that it would be fine if we could build a fence around ourselves and not accept this responsibility. We tried to do that once, back in 1920, and it didn't work. And we can't do it now. These are critical times you are going through, because the danger of Communist aggression threatens us with another world war. It will take all our wisdom, all our courage, all our patience, and a lot of hard work to avoid an all-out war. Now, to meet that responsibility, we must have a man for President of the United States who understands just exactly what that means. And that man is Adlai Stevenson. He has had experience. He has been the Governor of one of the greatest States in the Union. He has been a successful Governor, and he has had experience in foreign policy. He has had experience in government in every phase, and I am sure that he will carry on the policies which have made the coun- try great in the last 20 years. We have, on the other side of the picture, a general who has been nominated by the Republicans to run for President. I am very fond of this general — just a minute now — I want to tell you what I think about the General — I like him very much. I am very fond of the General; but his whole life has been spent as a military man. He has a military mind, which is a very peculiar one, the military mind is. And I have had a great deal to do with the military mind, ever since I went to Washington, and I think I understand it pretty well. I ran a committee in the Senate and had some very, very strange experiences with the military mind. And that is no reflection on our generals. They are great men in their line — most of our generals are fine men; but their training doesn't fit them for civil government. Moreover, the Republican candidate has fallen in with a pretty bad crowd — the reac- tionary Old Guard seems to have taken him into camp. Some of the advice he has been getting lately, I am afraid he will wreck our whole foreign policy, and the peace of the world. And we don't want that to happen. We want to continue the prosperity of this great country of ours, and that prosperity must be continued. And we certainly don't want to get into a third world war by wreck- ing the economy of the United States here at home. I am afraid of the Republicans — we have had experience with them. I don't want to have them in control of the Govern- ment under the present circumstance. I think in your own interest — your inter- est— you, as the Government, must look at this thing carefully. You must vote for the welfare of your own State, your own self. You must also have in mind the welfare of this great Nation — as I said awhile ago, the greatest in the history of the world. And you must also have in mind the ability of this great Nation of ours to keep the peace of the world. And if you have that in mind, there is only one thing you can do in November, on the 4th day of that month: that is to vote the Democratic ticket and vote for every man on it, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. 683 [274] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents note: In the course of his remarks on October 2 the President referred to, among others, Cliff Yelle, Democratic candidate for State Auditor, William Bryan and Don Magnuson, Democratic candidates for Representative, Senator Warren G. Magnuson, Representative Hugh B. Mitchell, Democratic can- didate for Governor, Mon C. Wallgren, former Gov- ernor of Washington, Representative Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson, Democratic candidate for Senator, Jack Taylor, Democratic candidate for State Land Commissioner, Phil Gallager, Democratic candidate for State Treasurer, Robert Dellwo and John J. O'Connell, Democratic candidates for Representative, William Sullivan, Democratic candidate for State Insurance Commissioner, Harry F. Henson, Demo- cratic candidate for Representative, Smith Troy, Democratic candidate for State Attorney General, and Lieutenant Governor Victor A. Meyers, all of Washington. In Wenatchee, the President referred to Rufus Woods, editor and publisher of the We- natchee Daily World and an active participant in conservation projects until his death in 1950. 275 Address in Seattle at the Auditorium of the Fraternal Order of Eagles. October 2, 1952 I THANK you most sincerely for that cordial welcome. All day long, as I have come across your beautiful State, I have seen the evidence of your progress and your increasing prosperity. All this is good to see, and it makes me conscious of the progress our whole Nation has made in the last 20 years. I am out campaigning for the Democratic Party, in case you don't know why I am here. You see, the President has five jobs. Each one of the five is an alltime job. The one I am occupying now is the head of the Demo- cratic Party, and I haven't had so much fun since 1948. The great State of Washington has an all- star team running on the Democratic ticket this fall. Now I want to talk to you about a very serious subject, and that is our defense pro- gram and our leadership in the fight for world peace. Here in Seattle, with its near- by Navy yards and Army bases, you are aware — as few other cities are — of the mag- nitude of our defense effort. You know the sacrifices that are being made by the men and women in our Armed Forces to keep aggression away from our own shores, and to check the Communist menace against the free nations. You see the ships leave for Korea, and you see them return. I do not have to emphasize to you that the menace of aggression is real. I do not have to explain to you that the Kremlin is armed, and that it will use force, even to the extent of bringing on war, if that will serve its ends. You know why we have to have a defense program. But I would like to talk to you about that program, about the progress we have made in it, and the cost of it. Because, like every- thing else, it is being dragged into politics this year. I want to put the record straight, because I know the facts, and I will not tell you anything but the facts. I have called our defense program a great national achievement — and that's exactly what it is. Of course, it's not perfect and it's not finished. We have a long way to go, but never before have we done so well in pre- paring our defenses to meet the threat of aggression. By preparing beforehand, we are trying to prevent a third world war — and I pray we shall succeed. Certainly, it is the only way we can succeed. In the 2 years since Korea, we have made America much stronger and safer than it was before. Before Korea, we had 48 air wings. We now have 95. We have made the same sort of progress in the Army and the Navy. We had 10 divisions in the Army before Korea. Now we have 20. We had 645 ships in the Navy. Now we have 1,140, almost twice as many. We have pushed our rate of production of military "hard goods" — that is, aircraft, tanks, guns, ships, and so on — to seven times the rate before Korea. Our scientists and engineers have brought 684 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 2 [275] us tremendous progress in the development of better weapons. The increase in the power of the jet engine has been in itself almost a military revolution. We have made tremendous advancements in the develop- ment of atomic weapons, and in the use of atomic energy for power. Guided missiles are now on the assembly line of production, and despite many technical difficulties will soon be in the hands of tactical units. We have made great progress, also, in building the industrial strength that under- lies our military strength. We have built new plants and factories that will give us more steel, more power, more gasoline, and more weapons. We have also made great progress in strengthening our allies. It is not our policy to go it alone. We believe in having allies to help us with the. burdens of defense — in the common cause. For that reason we are sup- plying arms and other aid to the free na- tions. While we can take pride in these achieve- ments, I regret to say we cannot rest on them. I wish it were otherwise. But all the reports we get from behind the Iron Curtain tell us that the Soviets are still frantically building a military machine that can threaten the whole free world. They tell us that we have not yet reached that superiority in mili- tary strength that is necessary to achieve and maintain peace. So we have to get on with the job. It costs money and effort, but our national survival depends upon it. It is not a choice between keeping our country safe, and keeping our pocketbooks safe. If the country isn't safe, we'll have no pocketbooks at all — safe or otherwise. There are lots of people who don't agree with me. They are people who never be- lieve there is a danger of foreign aggression until the blow falls. They are the people who voted to kill the draft back in 1941, just 2 months before Pearl Harbor. They are the people who vote to cut aid to our allies every year in Congress. They are the isolationist Republicans, and their leader is Senator Taft. Now, my friends, they are as wrong as they can be, but at least they are consistent. They say what they believe. And Senator Taft has written a whole book to explain their position. We are used to the Republican isolation- ists. We have had them with us for a long time. But the most dangerous thing is that they have now made a captive of the Repub- lican candidate for President — and that's too bad. Just a litde while ago, Senator Taft and the Republican candidate had breakfast to- gether. Up to that point, I had never guessed that the Republican candidate was on the iso- lationist side. But after that breakfast, the Senator came out and said that the General agreed emphatically with him that there ought to be tremendous cuts in our expendi- tures for defense. They had agreed to cut $10 billion off the budget in the fiscal year 1954, and about $20 billion in the following fiscal year. Neither one of them knows a thing about a budget. A few days later, the General made a speech — on his own time — making it plain that the largest part of these budget cuts had to come out of the defense program. And he had been helping to build up that de- fense program. Now, my friends, this is very serious busi- ness. In a time of crisis like this, a general, even one who is running for office, should not promise such cuts in the defense budget without telling us where they are to be made. Where can you cut $10 to $20 billion off our defense budget? You can't do it with- out endangering the security of the United States. I'll tell you that is a fact. It is a hard, cold fact — and nothing else. Now nobody knows more about the budg- ets than does the President of the United States. While I was in the United States Senate I was on the Appropriations Com- mittee and for 10 years I went over the budgets of the United States Government. I have made seven budgets and I am on the eighth one right now. I know every figure 685 [275] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents in the budget, what it stands for, why it is there. I'll bet you there's nobody else in this United States that knows that. There are three principal parts of the de- fense budget. The first of these is aid to friendly coun- tries. This year all that aid, military and economic, amounts to about $7 billion. If the Republican candidate could cut it all out, he would still not have made the saving he promises so freely. But if he cut it all out — or if he even cut out a half or a third of it — what would hap- pen? He would be abandoning allies all over the world — allies who want to help us — allies who have bases and raw materials we need and need badly. My friends, this is exactly what Senator Taft has always wanted to do. Of course, the Republican candidate has a right to advocate Senator Taft's foreign pol- icy, if he believes in it — but he ought to make it clear that that is exactly what he is doing. Now, the second major part of the defense budget is the cost of paying and maintaining the men and women in the Armed Forces. That is about $20 billion this year. If the candidate cut that by 10 billions — or even by 5 — it would mean demobilizing a large part of our armed strength. The third principal item in the defense budget is the procurement of major weap- ons— planes, tanks, guns — which runs at about $18 billion this year. Any great slash in this item would mean cutting back pro- duction right now. It would mean eliminat- ing much of the future buildup. Among other things, we would have to scrap the idea of a 1 43 -wing air force. Aside from those three major parts of the defense budget, there are a number of other items of expenditure, including such essen- tials as the atomic energy program, the re- search and development program in guided missiles and atomic artillery. But all these things together do not come to $10 billion — it would be lunacy to cut down our research programs. No matter how you distribute it among the various parts of the defense program, any $30 billion cuts, over the next 2 years, means a major blow at our national security — and we can't stand it. Now, the Republican candidate says he can make great economies in the operation of the armed services by eliminating waste and inefficiency. Perhaps he can, but he didn't do anything very spectacular along that line when he was Chief of Staff. He was always asking for more money. The most outstanding thing that he did was to eliminate the armed services forces combined procurement agency that had been so successful during the war — and reestab- lished the old system of letting each branch of the Army do its own buying. We have been struggling ever since to get some sort of combined control over Army and defense procurement, and are at last succeeding. But whether he is an expert on efficiency or not, even the General doesn't claim that waste in the Armed Forces amounts to $10 or $20 billion a year. This whole proposition is irresponsible, petty politics. No such cuts are possible without impairing our security — without, in fact, wrecking it. Any such savings would have to come out of the bone and sinew of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Cuts like these would reduce our whole effort to keep the peace. And that is all in the world we have to rearm for, is to keep the peace and to keep ourselves out of another world war. These fantastic political cuts would be shear folly in the face of the known dangers of Soviet aggression. Why has the Republican candidate, who knows something about the problems and the cost of national defense, come before the American people with this irresponsible bid for votes ? I'll tell you why. Because he wants the support of Senator Taft in this campaign. That's the only reason. And to get the sup- port of Senator Taft, he had to swallow the Taft foreign policy hook, line, and sinker 686 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 2 [276] and then disguise it in the budget. Now, my friends, I will tell you frankly, I am dismayed and disheartened that a man whom we all once respected and a man whom I trusted implicitly should thus turn his back upon the things we thought he stood for, particularly, what I thought he stood for. In contrast, we can be proud of the Demo- cratic candidate — Governor Stevenson of Illinois. Now, the Governor has been too honest to make any easy promises about drastically cutting our military strength. Governor Stevenson has said that there is no cheap and painless way to peace and security. He is right — and any politician who says there is such a thing as a cutrate, bargain-basement defense program is not worthy of your vote. The Democratic candidate and the Demo- cratic Party stand squarely behind the maintenance and strengthening of our mili- tary establishment. They stand for a firm defense policy which in the last 2 years has held the Communists in check. They stand for building strength to pre- vent war, not for the reckless cutting of strength which would risk our very survival as a Nation. I am confident as to the choice you will make, in the interests of safety, in the inter- ests of civilization, in the interests of the welfare of this country, in the interests of your own welfare. You must, on November the 4th, vote the Democratic ticket, and for every candidate on it. note: The President spoke at 5:35 p.m. in the auditorium of the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the Senate Hotel at Seattle. The meeting was spon- sored by the King County Democratic Central Com- mittee. 276 Address in Tacoma at a Rally in the Armory. October 2, 1952 Senator Magnuson, ladies and gentlemen: I want to thank you very much for that welcome which you have given to the Presi- dent of the United States. I want to warn you that I am here tonight in my political capacity — as leader of the Democratic Party. The President has enough functions to keep five men busy, but under our Constitution and our traditions, he has to perform them all himself. I am out here on a political mission. But I regard it as one of the most important mis- sions I have ever had to perform, because nothing is more vital to the future of our country than this coming election. I am here to persuade you to vote for the Demo- cratic candidates for President and Vice Pres- ident, and for all the other offices on the Democratic ticket. I cannot make this request out of any selfish interest on my part. I make it be- cause I love my country and am deeply inter- ested in its welfare. The people of the United States have bestowed upon me the highest office within their power. For that I shall be eternally grateful. I ask nothing more of them for myself. I have discharged the duties of that office to the very best of my ability. As to how successful I have been, opinions differ — I may say that they differ very widely indeed. But in one respect, at least, I think my ad- ministration will compare favorably with any other in our history — and that is in build- ing a structure of government policies that will contribute to lasting peace and continued prosperity. I feel sure that I leave office with this coun- try on a firmer economic basis than it was when I came in. The progress of this part of the country is an example of what I mean. All day today, as I have crossed this beau- tiful State, I have seen the fruits of the great enterprise of you people of the Northwest. Never has there been as much growth, as much activity, as there is today — that is true 687 [276] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents up and down this land of ours just as it is here in the great State of Washington — true all over the country. Private enterprise is confident of the fu- ture. Large and small businesses alike are enjoying good profits. Their customers have money which comes from good farm prices, from good wages — and steady work for all who want to work. In this country we have almost forgotten that there can be such things as mass unem- ployment, bank failures, dollar-a-day wages, and 30-cent wheat — those sorry symbols of Republican rule. Business has been confi- dent, and rightly so, that with the Demo- cratic Party in control of the national Gov- ernment we will never return to those days. And so business is building for the future. Now, my friends, what is the reason for this? It's very simple. The programs of the Federal Government in the past 20 years have made America a land of individual security, and at the same time a land of un- equaled opportunity. In these 20 years, the Democratic Party has demonstrated over and over again these two objectives — individual security and op- portunity— go together. You can see it in every field. The Democratic Party has put some se- curity into agriculture, by means of price supports and other measures — and now the opportunity for private enterprise in farm- ing is greater than it has ever been. The Democratic Party put some security into the banking system — and the oppor- tunities for private enterprise in banking are greater than they ever have been. The Democratic Party has done some- thing about slums through public housing, and has put a floor under mortgage values — and the number of houses built by private enterprise is at the highest level in the history of the country. The Democratic Party introduced social security for the aged and the widow and the orphan — and the number of life insur- ance policies in force is greater than it ever has been. The Democratic Party has built giant dams in the Northwest and elsewhere in the country — and private industries are springing up and flourishing wherever these dams have been constructed. These are just examples, which could be multiplied many times over. In doing these things, the Democratic Party has been following a great American tradition — a tradition that goes back to the earliest days of the country. This is the tradition of combining public action with private action, in order to build up the economic life of the country. It began with Federal aid to education, back in 1787, when Congress set aside a portion of public lands to support schools in the Northwest Territory. In fact, our Founding Fathers were great believers in having the Government do for the people what the people could not do for themselves. Back in 18 13, for example, the Federal Government financed the distribu- tion of smallpox vaccine throughout the country. That was the first Government health program. It was sponsored by James Madison, who drafted the Constitution. I don't know whether anybody then set up a howl about "socialized medicine" or not. I think probably not is the answer, because that was before the Republican Party was invented. In our time, the Republican Party has op- posed most of the great programs by which our Government has undertaken to help the economic life of the country. The Repub- lican Party has blindly turned its back on this great, old American tradition of pub- lic action for public good. The reason, I think, lies in the fact that the Republican Party has become a collec- tion of special interest groups. A special interest group, by definition, can never see beyond the limits of its own greediness. The insurance companies, for example, back in 1935 and 1936, couldn't see anything 688 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 2 [276] in social security beyond the fact they would not be writing the insurance policies. So they were violently against it, and they got the Republican Party against it. And yet now they have more insurance policies in force than ever any country had in the history of the world. The utility companies couldn't see any- thing in those great public power projects beyond the fact that private companies would not be making a profit out of the power. So they were against these projects, and then automatically the Republican Party came out against them, too. The real estate lobby couldn't see any- thing in low-cost public housing beyond the fact that houses were going to be built and their members would not make any money out of them. So they were against public housing, and automatically the Republican Party is against it, too. And so it goes, down through the whole list. The policies of the Republican Party are the total of all the negative attitudes of all the special groups that put up the money for it, and pull the strings. Consequently, the Republican Party is a most dangerous group to put in charge of the affairs of this country. The Republican Party is always looking at the country through the wrong end of the telescope. They see it small, and the Democrats see it big. They see it as a limited economy, to be divided up between the vested interests. We see it as an unlimited expanding economy, with constant possibilities of growth, and opportunities for everybody — including even these special interests I am talking about. They profit from that policy, too. The record proves, over and over, just how wrong the Republican Party has been. In 1932, they told us that we couldn't bring the country out of depression by Gov- ernment aid. They called it lifting ourselves by our bootstraps. But we did it. Then in 1936, after recovery had become a reality, they told us that we couldn't have both recovery and reform. But we did have it. They told us in 1940 that we could not — and should not — prepare to defend ourselves against the aggression of the Nazis and the Fascists. They said we could do business with Hitler. They said we did not need defenses. My friends, they were wrong on both counts. Then, after we had started our tremendous mobilization program, they told us we could not produce 50,000 planes in a year. So we went ahead and produced 100,000. I was present in the Congress, as a Member of the Senate, when President Roosevelt asked for that performance — and he got it. After the war, we turned to building a peace, to using our expanded industrial power for better living— and they told us we could not provide jobs for 60 million people. And today we have 62 million people at work. Great prophecy that! Each year, my Economic Reports to the Congress have set expanded goals for na- tional production. Those reports are usu- ally greeted by the Republicans in the Con- gress with jeers. But we have long since exceeded those goals and we are setting ourselves now for higher targets. The false prophets told us in 1950, after the Communists invaded Korea, that we could not afford a defense program adequate to throw back the aggressors and to build our strength to withstand future attacks. This, they said, would reduce our living standards and bankrupt the country. An old Republican phrase— "bankrupt the country." But today we are well along in such a de- fense program and it has not destroyed our living standards. On the contrary, it has given us new factories, new sources of power, new additions to our productive capacity, that will lift our living standards even higher after the emergency is over. The current prophecy of the Republican 689 [276] Oct. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents Party — the thing they are saying in this cam- paign— is that we are headed for national bankruptcy. Well, I don't have to answer that. Look around you. Show me any evidence of bankruptcy of this Government of ours in this country. This is what they have been saying for the last 20 years. They have been wrong — just as wrong as they can be — and they are still wrong, these men of little vision and no heart. They live among us, but they do not share our faith in the boundless possibilities of America, or our great dreams for the future. In this year of 1952, the collection of spe- cial interest groups that dominate the Repub- lican Party selected as their candidate for President a man who is totally unfamiliar with — and almost completely unaware of — the great issues between liberalism and reac- tion that we have fought out and decided in this country over the last 20 years. Their candidate is a man who stepped out of civilian life 40 years ago, when he entered the Army. Since that time, down almost to the present, he has lived the specialized life of the soldier. The great issues that mean bread and butter to most of us have passed him by completely. He doesn't know what it means not to have social security, because he has always had it — total, military security; and he has had job security, too — ever since he entered West Point. He doesn't know what it is to worry about the cost of medical care, be- cause the Government has paid all his medi- cal bills since he was a boy in West Point. He has had the cares and anxieties of an Army officer, but not those of an active civilian trying to make a living. He never met a payroll in his life, or carried a pre- cinct in his life. And I hope he doesn't learn how now. And he doesn't know a special interest lobby when he sees one. Now this is just the kind of man the special interests can move in on, and take over. And that is exactly what they have been doing. The General told the Republican conven- tion in July that he would lead them in a great crusade. But he didn't tell them what the crusade was to be about. Like all good generals, he was waiting for his objective to be set by higher author- ity. He was ready to lead the troops, but he didn't know what to campaign for, or what it was to accomplish. That was a problem that he, as a military man, had never before had to decide for himself. So the Republican Old Guard moved in, and wrote his orders for him. The directive was drafted by Senator Taft, and subscribed to by the Republican candi- date, at their famous breakfast in New York City a few weeks ago. Senator Taft left that meeting and told the press what the General stands for. The General didn't tell him. Senator Taft announced the missing objective — and the purpose of the great cru- sade. Senator Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socializa- tion," and that is what the General is cru- sading against. "Creeping socialization" — or "creeping socialism" — those are the words that give the game away. Socialism — sometimes "creeping" and sometimes "galloping" — is the slogan and patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Now listen to this: Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank de- posit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organiza- tions. 690 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. [276] Socialism is their name for anything that helps all the people. Now, my friends, when the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down with Socialism" on the banner of his great cru- sade, that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is "Down with Prog- ress," down with the New Deal and down with the Fair Deal. That's what the objec- tive of the great crusade is now. Don't you fool yourselves. This is a strange crusade for him to be leading. As the General goes campaigning down this dreary road to the past, he will come across his own footprints, the foot- prints of millions of his fellow Americans, going the other way. We all came along this road once, away from the past, and the General, whether he knew it or not, was along with us. It was the New Deal that made this coun- try strong enough to resist Hitler — and laid the foundation for that mighty military effort that the General once led in Europe. It was the Fair Deal that continued our progress, and built our strength against the challenge of communism. It was the Fair Deal that made it possible for us to furnish aid to the North Adantic Treaty countries which the General, just a few short months ago, was welding into a unified defense for Europe. And I appointed him to that job. And I had utmost confidence in him, and he did a good job in Europe — and that is where he ought to stay. It was the New Deal and the Fair Deal, in this broad sense, that gave the General those great opportu- nities to exercise his military abilities, and distinguish himself as the commander of our forces in the field. It is a sad thing now to see this man, led around by those of little faith and no vision — campaigning against the kind of America that he once symbolized before the world. It makes me very sad. This campaign has already demonstrated that a military man should stick to his pro- fession. We do not need any additional proof. It would be disastrous to test the truth of the proposition any further by elect- ing him to an office he is not qualified to fill. We certainly can spare ourselves that. Now, my friends, we ought to elect as our President Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. He is the man who has wide experience with the greatest problems of foreign and domestic policy. He knows what it really means to fight for the people's welfare, and to resist the attacks and the corruption of the special interests. He knows the objectives of this campaign, and the objectives of this Govern- ment, without being told. As Vice President, we ought to elect John Sparkman — a man who worked tirelessly as a representative of the people's interests for many years. You people out here in Washington ought to take the great opportunities you have this year to elect as fine a slate of liberal candi- dates as I have ever seen. Scoop Jackson, Hugh Mitchell, Don Magnuson, John J. O'Connell, and all your State officials. Now your welfare is at stake and the wel- fare of this country is at stake. Your in- terests are the interests of the country. You, the people, are the Government. For your own welfare, for your own continued pros- perity, for peace in the world, for the wel- fare of the greatest nation the sun has ever shone upon, I urge you to vote the Demo- cratic ticket this fall. note: The President spoke at 9:05 p.m. in the Armory at Tacoma, Wash. In his opening words he referred to Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Wash- ington. Later he referred to Representative Henry M. Jackson, Democratic candidate for Senator, Rep- resentative Hugh B. Mitchell, Democratic candidate for Governor, and Don Magnuson and John J. O'Con- nell, Democratic candidates for Representative, all of Washington. The meeting was sponsored by the Pierce County Democratic Central Committee. 69I [277] Oct. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents 277 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Oregon and California. October 3, 1952 [1.] Klamath Falls, Oregon (Rear plat- form, 9:05 a. m.) I have had a warm welcome wherever I have gone in the Pacific Northwest. I am sorry that I had to go through Portland and Eugene, and most of your State by night. I wish I could have seen more of Oregon, and talked to more of its citizens. As you may have heard by rumor, I am out here campaigning for the Democratic ticket. You have a good group of Demo- cratic candidates this year. I hope you will send John Jones to Con- gress as your Representative from this dis- trict. I think he will give this district excel- lent representation in Washington, which will be comparable to that you have received from that great Democrat, Walter Pierce. And you have a good Democratic State ticket, too. I hope you will vote for all of them. There is no reason why Oregon should not be a Democratic State. It would be, too — if all the people of Oregon remembered to register and vote. I am told that there were between 300,000 and 400,000 Oregonians who failed to register and vote in 1948. When you fail to exercise your rights as citi- zens, you have no right to complain about the Government you get. So remember — this Saturday is the last day you can register in Oregon. Be sure to go and register now, because it is your duty. You are the Government. The people of these United States are the Government. That is where the power is situated. And when you don't exercise your right to vote, you are not doing the right thing for yourself or the country. I have been gready impressed by the progress of this northwest area. As I said at Tacoma last night, in this area private enter- prise and public enterprise are working to- gether for the public good. One of the big elements in your prosperity is the electric power that is being produced from the great public power projects of the Northwest. These dams and transmission lines were built because you had a Democratic admin- istration in Washington. The Democratic Party is not controlled by the power com- panies. It can look beyond the narrow horizons of private profit, and build great projects like these that no private company has the vision or the resources to undertake. These great power projects are a fine investment for the taxpayer. They are more than paying back their cost to the Treasury, both directly through the power they sell, and indirecdy, through the incomes and the prosperity they create. They are an asset be- cause they bring taxpaying property into use that otherwise would not be in use, and they increase the assets of the Nation as a whole. Now the Republican Party, dominated by the power lobby and the eastern Republicans, have fought these developments, tooth and toenail. They have fought virtually every dam, every forest access road, and every power transmission line in this area. Of course, the Republican spokesmen are trying to cover up that bad record now — be- cause this is an election year. But they can- not cover up the fact that whenever the time has come to vote, most of them have been against such things as public power. And what is worse, some of them are planning to stop it, and take those projects away from the people and sell them back to private companies if they ever get elected. The special interest lobbies that dominate the Republican Party can't bear to see any- thing owned by the public. They have a long, dark record of turning over the prop- erty of the people to private control. I am told that, many years ago, a Republi- can State administration turned over the pub- 692 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 3 [277] lie school lands of the State of Oregon to private interests. Some of you may remem- ber that way back in the Coolidge and Hoover days, the Republican Party tried to sell the Muscle Shoals Dam to the power trust. Some of you may recall how, in the days of Harding, they gave the oil reserves of Teapot Dome to the oil companies. Don't think the special interests have re- formed. They are smoother now, but their objectives haven't changed a bit. They have their eye on these great power projects. A bill has already been introduced into the Congress, by a Republican, to study all Federal projects and find out how many could be turned over to private firms and lo- cal governments. And a new plan has been devised to sell all the powerplants of the Government to private investors. Now what would that mean? It would mean that the great private companies would get a stranglehold on the economy of these areas. Private corporations would decide who should get Bonneville power and Grand Coulee power and TVA power and who should not. A few men would have con- trol of the development of great chunks of the United States, and the public wouldn't have much to say about it. If you want to know more about this in- teresting proposal, read the current issue of the magazine called "U.S. News and World Report." There's a great long article in that old conservative magazine telling just what they would like to do to these public power projects. You had better read it and inform yourselves. There's an article in there that tells all about it. It says they are even plan- ning to seize the Post Office. And that arti- cle says that these schemes to fleece the pub- lic "may get a try, if the Republicans control the White House and the Congress after next January 20." And you better think about that very carefully. I don't vouch for the truth of that predic- tion, but I ask you, "Do you see anything in the history, or the record, or the platform of the Republican Party to suggest that that is not what they are planning to do?" This is the kind of thing in the Republican Party that breaks the heart of every liberal Republican. There have been great liberals in the Republican Party, from Lincoln on down. But most of them have either been driven out or whipped into line. Go down the list. There was Theodore Roosevelt, and he became a Bull Moose. There was old Bob LaFollette, and he had to get out. There was George Norris, who fought harder for public power than any other man — and the special interests in his own party ganged up on him and beat him, and sent a double- dyed conservative to the Congress in his place. On this trip I have been crossing some States where the tradition of Republican progressivism used to be strong. Now it is being driven to the wall by the Old Guard. Senator Bill Langer of North Dakota rode on my train. I haven't always agreed with Bill, but I know he has always been on the side of the people. He told me he doesn't owe the Republican Party anything — they have tried to beat him three times, just be- cause he is right on most of these questions. Then there is your own Senator Wayne Morse — one of the finest men and best liberals I have ever known. Up to this sum- mer he had hopes that the Republican Party could be reformed. He worked for the man who is now the Republican candi- date for President, thinking that he was a liberal. And then what happened? Just a few weeks after the Republican convention the candidate surrendered to Senator Taft — and gave in to the Old Guard on every issue, from public power to national defense. He didn't stand up for a single liberal principle when the going got tough. So Senator Morse has refused to work for him — and I respect the Senator for that. Wayne Morse can see through the five-star glitter to the sad fact underneath, that the Republican candidate is the captive of the Old Guard. I ask you not to turn this country over to 55-672—06- -47 693 [277] Oct. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents the reactionary wing of the Republican Party. I ask you to vote for the kind of Govern- ment that this country needs. I ask you to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party for President. Vote for Adlai Steven- son of Illinois. He knows what these issues are about. He has fought corruption, he has fought special privilege. He is honest and courageous and he has always been on the side of the people. He is an unusual man, and the American people have seldom had the opportunity of choosing a better leader for their President. Now it is up to you. It is up to you as individuals to vote in your own interests. As I said awhile ago, you are the Govern- ment— you must vote for your own welfare, vote for the welfare of the country, and vote for a government that is doing everything it possibly can to maintain peace in the world. Thank you very much. [2.] Dunsmuir, California (Rear plat- form, 11:55 a.m.) This is a most wonderful country. I envy you for it. I wish I had Mount Shasta in my backyard — I'd have a much bigger backyard than I have now. I don't want you to be laboring under any misapprehension as to why I am here today. I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, in case you don't know it. I have been traveling across the country telling the people some plain facts. What it all adds up to is that the Republican Party has a pretty sorry record. They have been against al- most every kind of progressive measure that makes this country a better place in which to live. You know, some strange things have been happening in the Republican Party. It is getting so hard to tell just what the letters GOP stand for. Back in 1948, 1 said GOP stood for "Glut- tons Of Privilege" — and there is a lot of truth in that, because the Republican Party was the party of special privilege in 1948; and it is, still, today. Then the other day, Governor Stevenson said he had heard the GOP stands for "Grouchy Old Pessimists" — and there is a lot of truth in that, because the Republican Party made a political issue out of Governor Stevenson's sense of humor. Now I have heard another one. They tell me that GOP stands for the "Generals' Own Party," or to put it another way, the "Party of the Generals." There's a lot of truth in that, too. The Republicans have General MacArthur, and General Martin of Pennsylvania, and General Wedemeyer. Then, of course, they have their five-star general who is running for President, and I understand he carries some other generals around with him to help him with his political campaign. Now I am perfectly willing and glad in- deed that the Republicans have all the gen- erals, if you will just give me the corporals and the privates. Now that's a lot of generals, but I still haven't mentioned some of the biggest Re- publican generals of all, and that is: General Motors, General Electric, and General Foods. They have all the generals but one, and he is in our camp, and that is the general wel- fare of the people. The Republicans are the party of the gen- erals, and the Democrats are the party of the privates. With the Republicans, the big fellows come first. With the Democrats, we take care of the little fellows. The only Democratic general I can think of is the one I told you about awhile ago, and his name is general welfare. Now I will have to confess to you that I was a captain in World War I, but don't let that worry you. I found out the hard way that captains are a lot closer to the privates than they are to the generals. I have been a private, and a corporal, and a sergeant, too, so I know what the corporals and the privates and the sergeants think about, any- way. 694 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 3 [277] Anyway, our candidate for President is a man who was an apprentice seaman in World War I, so he too knows how the privates in the ranks feel. He is Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I hope you will vote for Governor Stevenson and Senator Spark- man. Governor Stevenson has given Illi- nois about the best and most progressive government that State ever had. That is the best possible training for the Presidency. Senator Sparkman has one of the most progressive records in the Senate. He has been for small business and for the everyday man. These are men you can trust, Now it is your business to decide how your public officials serve you. You your- selves— the people — have the power of this Government. The Constitution says the power shall rest in the people, and when you exercise your right of franchise, that is how you exercise your right of power and control of the Government. And when you don't go out and vote on election day, you are not doing justice to yourself or to the country. If you don't go out and vote, and you get bad government, you have nobody in the world to blame but yourselves. Now, I hope every one of you will think this situation over. I hope you will study the issues. I hope you will read the record. I emphasize the fact that the record is made. It is in fine print in the Congressional Rec- ord, and it is hard to read. A lot of people don't like to read fine print, but this is of such importance you ought to inform your- selves as to which is the party of the people, which is the party of progress, and which party is not the party of progress. And then you ought to go to the polls and vote for your best interests. Vote for the wel- fare of this great Nation of ours. Vote for the welfare of the world as a whole, and for the party that is making the strongest en- deavor to get peace in the world. If you do that, the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [3.] Redding, California (Shasta College Stadium, 3:40 p.m.) I am very happy to be here this afternoon, and I am delighted that I had an opportu- nity today to take a good look at Shasta Dam. It is a wonderful thing to see. It shows what the people of this country can do, through their own Government, to take what nature offers and put it to work for everybody's benefit. That is what we've done with this water that nature has provided in these mountains. The water stored at Shasta Dam is being used for irrigation — helping farmers grow good crops along the Central Valley. It flows south, 500 miles to Bakersfield, and halfway back again. The water stored at Shasta Dam is also being used to turn great generators — creat- ing power for farms and homes, and cities and factories of this region. Water and power — in the right amounts, at the right places, and for the right price — these are the keys to development of the West, from the Rocky Mountains to the coast. All over the West, now, we are checking floods and turning water into storage places, where it can be used to make power and to irrigate the land. That is what we are doing here at Shasta. That's what will be done soon at Folsom Dam. We are doing the same thing at Bonneville and Grand Coulee, at Hungry Horse Dam in Montana where I stopped the other day, at the Tennessee Val- ley dams back East, and at Boulder Dam in the Southwest. I call it Boulder Dam, but the Republicans prefer the title Hoover Dam. They changed the name, back in the 80th Congress — and that's the only contribution to the power field that the 80th Congress made. You know the Republicans puzzle me sometimes. They are always saying that when we build these dams to produce pub- lic power, that's socialism. But they still wanted to name that dam for President 695 [277] Oct. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents Hoover. So there it stands on the Colorado River, a magnificent monument to "creeping socialism," and the name of it is Hoover Dam. Now, I think that's kind of funny. All these great projects are public projects, developed by your Government. They are public projects because the water resources they use belong to all the people. They are public projects because they are enterprises of tremendous size and scope, in- volving the coordinated development of whole river systems for many purposes. They are expensive to build and require much time to pay for themselves. These are the reasons why the American people have turned to their Government to do these things. And the Government has been doing them — and doing a great many other things the people want and need and are entitled to. It is the firm belief of the Democratic Party that our Government exists to serve the people of the country. That is what my ad- ministration has tried faithfully to do — and Franklin Roosevelt did the same thing before me. In 20 years, under Federal programs car- ried out by Democratic administrations, water has been brought to 3V2 million acres of rich western farmland. That's an amount of acreage in crops equal to the cultivated land in New England and New Jersey combined. In those 20 years, the Government has appropriated about %2l/2 billion for western reclamation projects — more than seven times the total in all the years previous to that. And one of our proudest accomplish- ments— one of the most successful — is Shasta Dam, and the whole great reclamation and irrigation project in the Central Valley of California. My friends, it may be hard for you to un- derstand why I should interrupt a campaign trip in this election year to come and sing the praises of Shasta Dam and the Central Valley project. It may appear to you that their usefulness and value are self-evident. You may believe that projects of this kind need no defense from me speaking as a partisan campaigner. But if you have any notions of that sort, you had better get them out of your heads. For in this election, there are few issues more clearly at stake than the future of these proj- ects— and the policies which brought them into being. It is not the Democratic Party which has made these things the issue. Our party platform accepts them all, and pledges to continue to improve them. It is not the Democratic candidate for President who has made an issue of public power, or reclama- tion, or flood control. On the contrary, he made it perfectly plain in Seattle a few weeks ago, that he stood fair and square on the Democratic platform. No, it is not the Democrats, it is the Re- publicans who have made the issues here. It is an issue because the Republicans are threatening to wipe out the progress we have made and to reverse our policies, however and wherever they can. The Republican platform hints at this intent. Their candidate for President has now con- firmed it. And their record in Congress bears him out. Now, as for the Republican candidate, I do not know what view he may have formed upon these questions before he entered into politics this summer. It may be, that in his life of Army service, he never had occasion to form any views at all on this subject. But one thing I do know. Since he be- came a candidate he seems to have embraced most of the prejudices of the Republican Old Guard. He has surrendered to them and he speaks their language now. Now, my friends, I feel sorry for that little band of liberal Republicans who dreamed that the General would become their cham- pion. Men like Earl Warren, men like Wayne Morse, must find it hard to listen to what he has to say these days. When the General spoke in Boise, Idaho, a few short weeks ago, he left no doubt that 696 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 3 [277] he was now the spokesman for the Old Guard GOP. He made it plain he does not understand, and does not sympathize with, Federal action to harness our rivers and pro- vide the water and the power that you need so badly here. He does not think the Fed- eral Government should do these things. Many people have been wondering what kind of a President the Republican candi- date would make, if he were elected. Many of you may have wondered just what he would do about public power and reclama- tion. He has not been specific, up to now — but I do not think the answer's hard to find. I think it can be found in the record of the Republicans in Congress. It is a record writ- ten by the same Old Guard Republicans who now surround the five-star general. These are the people who voted against creating the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933. These are the people who voted in 1946 to block the great transmission line from Shasta Dam to Sacramento. These are the people who voted in 1947 to cut out half the money for the Central Valley project. These are the people who voted five separate times, in the Republican 80th Con- gress, to cripple rural electrification. These are the people who voted just last year, to sabotage our national power policy and give the power companies a rakeoff on public power sales. The Old Guard Republicans of today are a far cry from men like Teddy Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot — men who did so much for conservation in this country. But those were different days and they were a different breed of Republicans than the ones who run the GOP today. Today's Republican leaders have but one thought in mind — to serve the interests of the big corporations that finance the Republican Party and control its policies from top to bottom. My friends, the power companies own a great deal of stock in the Republican Party — and that party's policies on public power will be the policies these private interests want — not what you want. The plain people of this country do not count with the GOP. And the resources of this country will no longer be developed for the people, if the Republicans succeed in grabbing off the White House and the Congress next November. Remember that. Give it some thought. It is a matter of very great importance to you and to this whole wonderful western coun- try. A vote for the Republicans in this election is a vote against your own interests. A vote for them is a vote against the future. It is a vote against the growth, the prosper- ity, and progress of California and the whole West. I urge upon you, do not turn this country over to the special interest lobbies. Cast your vote for a President who under- stands your problems, cares about your needs, and will work for your progress and the country's progress. Vote for Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. You, yourselves, are responsible for the sort of government we will have in the next 4 years. You are responsible if your own interests are not protected. You — the peo- ple— are the Government of the United States. And if you don't exercise your privi- lege at the polls next November, and you get bad government, and you get these great things wiped out which we have been build- ing in the last 20 years, you won't have any- body to blame but yourselves. So do your duty on election day, and then you will be all right, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [4.] Red Bluff, California (Rear plat- form, 4:55p.m.) It is a real pleasure, I can assure you, to receive a welcome like that here in the home of my good old friend Clair Engle. I'm sorry he can't be here. I have a telegram from Clair Engle and I would like to read it to you: "I regret that a longstanding engage- ment in Los Angeles which could not be 697 [277] Oct. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents changed without serious inconvenience to other people prevents my being present to welcome you into my district, and especially to Shasta Dam, the key unit of the Central Valley project which is so successful that the California State engineer has issued a formal report that it could be purchased by the State with interest-bearing revenue bonds and pay out in 50 years with a profit of $368 million. If that is, quote, Democratic bungling, end of quote, we should have more of it. I wel- come you to my district and wish you a pleas- ant and successful journey. Congressman Clair Engle." I have come here on this trip for a special purpose. I guess maybe you have guessed it. I am on a campaign for Democratic victory in November, and I am doing everything I can to help put Adlai Stevenson in the White House on the 20th of January. If that comes about, you can be sure I will pack up my bags and head home to Missouri the hap- piest man alive. For I'll know that my place has been taken by a very great and very able new leader. I will know that all of you will have a friend to look out for your interests. I have been on this train for 6 days now, stopping to talk to people all along the way. It has been my job to tell them some plain facts and hard truths about the Republican Party, and even about the Republican candi- date. Now that is not very pleasant, because the facts aren't very pleasant in this par- ticular case. And this time I want to take a vacation from it and talk to you about some pleasant things, like the growth of this great State of yours, which is one of the wonders of our time. Your growth out here has been phenom- enal and I am proud to say your Govern- ment has helped you — worked in partner- ship with you. That is what government is for, and that is how the Democratic Party has been running it for these 20 years. Here we have built great dams like Shasta that have controlled water and made power available to farms and cities. Here we are carrying out the great Central Valley project, adding abundance to California's already rich agricultural economy. Through State and Federal measures we are managing to save the last of your great forests, some of the greatest and oldest left in the whole world. And in our national parks, we have preserved your natural won- derlands and secured them for future genera- tions. Our Federal road program has helped you crisscross your mountains and your valleys with good highways — highways your State Government, with the aid of Federal funds, is constantly improving. You have some of the best in the world. All these things add up to splendid ac- complishments. California is richer, its land is more productive, and you have a better life because of it. Did you ever stop to think that in the last analysis these are the two big assets that we have: our land and our people? If we take care of both the people and the land, we will continue to grow strong, and we will remain the greatest nation on earth. That is my prescription for America — and I know it is yours. There is a lot of talk about big govern- ment. But our Government is big only be- cause our land is big, and our people are many. You know, those people who talk about big government, and the dangers of big government, forget that the government they are thinking about was the government of a very few people comparatively. They want to go back and think about the gov- ernment when there were 30 million people in this country, or when there were 70 mil- lion people in this country. Now there are 157 million people in this country, and in- stead of being an isolated country, which is bound by the two oceans and by Canada and Mexico, it has become the free leader of all the world. And the government that is the free leader of all the world has to have a government in compensation to the size of the job that it Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 3 [277] has to do. Nobody in the world is going to roll this country back. We have to go for- ward. You people here in California are a dem- onstration of what happens when a coun- try is properly developed. And you are properly developed because you have a gov- ernment with the will to do for you what our Government should do for its people. Now, I want you to bear that in mind. When you go to the polls in November, remember that you are the Government, that it is you that is to profit by the welfare of this Nation, if you have good government. And when you don't have good govern- ment, it is your own fault, because you don't vote for the right people, and you don't de- serve any sympathy. If you do the right thing, you will go down there on November the 4th and you will vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man, and you will have 4 more years of good government, and 4 more years of good growth for California. [5.] Gerber, California (Rear platform, 5:20 p.m.) I am certainly glad to be here this after- noon in Gerber. You are certainly most cordial in your welcome, and I appreciate it very much. By now there is no secret about why I am out here. I am campaigning for the Demo- cratic ticket, and it is giving a lot of people the jitters, too. The President has five jobs, any one of which is a full-time job for most people. I am out here in my job as leader of the Demo- cratic Party because I believe that the future peace and prosperity of this great country depend on the election of Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman and the whole Demo- cratic ticket. Now one of the newspapermen along on this trip has heard so much about my five jobs, as President, that I hear he wrote a litde piece for his paper saying: "President Truman keeps talking about jobs all the time — five for himself and 62 million jobs for the rest of the American people." I like that description, because that is just what the Democrats have done for the last 20 years — we have brought jobs to 62 million people. In the past 7 years the Democratic ad- ministration has brought more prosperity to the average man than in any period in the history of the country. Take railroad work- ers, for example — in 1945 the average straight-time hourly rate of railroad em- ployees was about 93 cents. Under an in- crease effective October 1st, 1952, that in- come will be about f 1.86, or an increase of exactly 100 percent. The gains which railroad workers have made, and the gains which all the people have made, did not come about by accident. They came about because you had a govern- ment that worked for the welfare of the people. And you could lose them if you get a government that did not care anything about the people. I have here a copy of the Wall Street Jour- nal— which I don't read very often, but I just happened to see this — and it has some- thing in it which you will be interested in. It is dated May 26, 1952, and it has a headline which says: "Mr. Taft has some ideas." I expect he has. And they'll wreck the coun- try if you give him a chance to carry them out, I can tell you that. This article in the Wall Street Journal tells about Senator Taft's plans to crack down on labor unions if the Republicans get into power. The article talks about how Senator Taft wants to put more teeth into the Taft- Hartiey Act. You may not think this will affect you, but I will say this to you — if the Republicans get into power, they will crack down on every- body except the special interests that put them into power. Keep these things in mind when you go to the polls next November. Weigh the record carefully. Vote for the party that is the party of the people, the party that has made the country prosperous over the last 20 years, the party that pulled us out of the 699 [277] Oct. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents greatest depression in the history of the world, the party that has kept the thing on an even keel. The economy of this country was never in a more balanced condition. The farmer is prosperous, the laboringman is receiving good wages, and the small busi- nessman and the big businessman are mak- ing fantastic profits. And they squawk to beat the band about taxes, but how in the world could they squawk about them when 20 years ago they didn't even have the in- come to pay the taxes? Now when they have the income to pay the taxes, they want to quarrel about it. They still have more money left than they ever had in the his- tory of the world. Now you go to the polls on the 4th of November, and vote for your own interests. Vote the Democratic ticket and put Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman in the White House, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you a lot. [6.] Davis, California (Rear platform, 7:28 p.m.) I want to say to you that I think you have one of the greatest Governors in the United States. He has always been my friend, and I have always been his — and I shall always be. I thank you most sincerely for the reception which you have given me. I appreciate it very much. You remember that I stopped here in June 1948. I was on a non- political trip then, on my way down to Berkeley to get a degree from the Univer- sity of California. I understand that the Agricultural College of the University is lo- cated here, and that you do some very fine experimental work here. I know you are contributing a great deal to the welfare and prosperity of the farmers of California, and I want to compliment you for that. I wish I had time to get off the train and go and look at the farm where you carry on your experiments, because I am still in- terested in farm programs. Now you photographers, don't do any shooting until I get through, then you can do all the shooting you like. I get so I can't see when you flash those things in my face. Maybe you like to do that — I don't know. If I could stay here awhile, maybe we could work out some experiments on how to get the Republican Party to bring its poli- cies on agriculture up to date. The Republican candidate for President made a speech a few weeks ago and said his farm activities belonged to the day of the Percheron and the mule. I am sure General Eisenhower is right about that, and his thinking on agricultural problems does not seem to have developed very much since that date. In fact, I don't believe that he or the Republican Party have had a constructive idea on farm policy in 30 years, and I know what I am talking about. The Republican candidate said something else in that speech that amazed me complete- ly. He said that our Government agricul- tural programs were brought into being on a nonpartisan basis. Now I just want to read you a part of the record, so you can see what this nonparti- san contribution by the Republicans was like. In 1933 — y°u remember 1933, xX- was pretty tough on the farmers — House Repub- licans voted against the Agricultural Adjust- ment Act in a ratio of 2 to 1. That same year they voted against TV A 8 to 1. In 1936 — and I was in the Senate at that time — they voted against the Soil Conserva- tion and Domestic Allotment Act 3 to 1. In 1938 they voted against the Triple-A, which is still our basic price support legis- lation, they voted against it 5 to 1. In 1939 they voted against parity pay- ments 7 to 1. In 1943 they voted to kill crop insurance 16 to 1. You remember that old ratio, don't you? California was interested in that at one time. The same year they voted against expand- ing rural electric power facilities 3 to 1. In 1947 they voted to kill the farm owner- ship program 8 to 1. That same year they 700 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 4 [278] voted to kill the agricultural conservation program 12 to 1. In 1948 they voted to cripple the grain storage program, and they succeeded, until the Democratic 81st Congress rescinded that action. In 1949 the majority of House Republi- cans voted against rural telephone pro- grams— and they called it socialistic — a threat to free enterprise. That same year they voted against price supports on perish- ables 40 to 1. In 195 1 they voted to cripple crop insur- ance 2 to 1. That same year they voted against expanding rural electric power 9 to 1; and they also voted to cripple the con- servation program. And only last July a majority of House Re- publicans voted against the amendment as- suring price supports at 90 percent of parity for 1953 and 1954. Now they are claiming credit for that, although they voted against them. In the face of a record like that, how in the world can the Republican Party or its wonderful candidate claim credit for the farm programs we have today? That's what I call try- ing to rewrite history for political purposes. I hate to think that the General was being deliberately dishonest. I don't think he was. I think it is more likely that he just didn't know what he was talking about. After all, why should he? He has spent all his life in the Army. He doesn't know anything about farming at all. No reason why he should. But when he has a bunch of politi- cal snollygosters around him giving him bad advice, he can't tell whether they are deceiving him or not. And I will tell you that is a mighty dangerous situation for the candidate to be in. I am afraid it is true with respect to a lot of other subjects, as well as farm problems. I don't believe you want to turn the coun- try over to a combination like that. The thing for you to do, if you want a President who understands your problem, and a gov- ernment that is interested in your welfare, is to vote the Democratic ticket. And I think that is exactly what you are going to do — just like you did in 1948. For your own interests, for your own welfare and benefit, vote to send John Moss to Congress. He is a good Democrat. He will give you the kind of representation you ought to have. Then, to top the thing off, in your own interest — now, you are the Government — you are the Government. I have been go- ing over the record, and if you will go over the record, you will find just exactly who has been the friend of the people — and it hasn't been the Republican Party at all. They never were the friend of the common people. You vote for yourselves. You vote for yourselves when you vote to continue good government. Vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, and the country will be in safe hands for the next 4 years. note: In the course of his remarks on October 3, the President referred to John G. Jones, Democratic candidate for Representative, Walter Pierce, former Governor and former Representative, and Senator Wayne Morse, all of Oregon, Senator William Langer of North Dakota, Representative Clair Engle of California, Governor Earl Warren of California who introduced the President at Davis, Calif., and John Moss, Democratic candidate for Representative from California. 278 Address at the Palace Hotel in San Francisco. October 4, 1952 Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Ambassador, Dr. Grady: I will admit that I did hunt up difficult jobs for Dr. Grady, and the reason I did that was because he was always successful in ac- complishing them. He is one of the great citizens of this United States of ours, and he has made a great contribution to the welfare of the Nation. I am honored to have been 55^672-66- -48 701 [278] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents presented to you by such a distinguished citizen of San Francisco. And I thank him very much for what he had to say. I want to compliment that orchestra up there. I am charged with being a musi- cian— I am not. I wish I were — but I do appreciate good music, and we have had good music this afternoon. I hope you will take what Dr. Grady had to say about the United Fund Drive to heart. That is the most important thing — one of the most important things — that we do in this great Nation of ours. I said what I believed about it the other evening on tele- vision, and also on the radio, and I meant every word of it. I hope you will give Dr. Grady your wholehearted support and put San Francisco over the top ahead of all the rest of them — except Independence, Mis- souri. Now before I start on the business of the day, I want to tell you how glad I am to be back again in San Francisco. This is the most wonderful combination of water, hills, and city that I know. It is always exciting to come back to San Francisco Bay and San Francisco City. I consider it a very great pleasure. As I was coming over here to this luncheon, I was asked by the chairman of the meeting if I would come back to San Francisco after I get out of my job. And I told him all he had to do was to ask me. I am pleased at the opportunity to talk to these groups here today. We meet as friends, because we have com- mon objectives. And the greatest common objective which we have is good government, the welfare of the world, and the peace of the world. We all want our country to continue as the leader and the partner in the free world's work for peace. We all want our Republic to protect and strengthen our greatest heritage — the basic rights and liberties of all Americans. We all want this Nation to hold fast to the basic objectives of the New Deal and the Fair Deal — a decent living and a de- cent opportunity for all our neighbors. We want these things in a free economy that lives and moves — never stagnant, never shrink- ing— always growing. I have said often before that the great difference between our major political par- ties comes to this: the Democratic Party be- lieves in the people; the Republican Party is bound to privilege. I have been accused of oversimplifying this situation. But speak- ing broadly, looking at the record, overall, I do not think this is too sharp a way to put the case. For it just happens to be true. Now they accuse me of going up and down the Nation on a whistlestop train, and the slogans that they hurl at me most of the time are "Give 'em hell, Harry." That reputation I did not earn. All I do is to tell them the truth, and that hurts a lot worse than giving them hell. Let me illustrate from just three of the specific issues that are before us in this elec- tion year — the issue of social security, the issue of housing, and the issue of health. Each of these issues is related to the others — all of them concern the welfare and security of every single one of us. On all these issues, the Republican Party, as a national organization, has long since become the "do-nothing" party — amply illus- trated by the 80th Congress which they con- trolled and which I named the "do-nothing" Congress. Its philosophy — if you can call it that — is simply to ignore social problems, even when they are of national scope. Now, this attitude arises from the kind of people who control the Republican Party. The dominating elements are various busi- ness and industrial groups whose attention is concentrated on the advancement of their own special interests. They lack compassion for the people. They are very short indeed of any understanding of the needs of the so- ciety in which we live. The difference between the two parties was never clearer than during the great de- pression of the early thirties. The Repub- lican administration took care of its own — they bailed out the banks and the utilities and the railroads. But they did not lift a 702 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 4 [278] finger to help the farmer or the small busi- nessman or the workingman. What did they do for 14 million unem- ployed? That, they said, was a local problem. That attitude cost the Republicans their power in this Nation 20 years ago. It cost them their role as the majority party in our political life. It has kept them as the minor- ity party in the national government ever since. But they still persist in the same old policies. They have not — and perhaps they cannot — change. I urge upon you — read their record in the Congress on any of these issues. Read the record all the way from 1933 to 1952; and you will find them always negative — always opposed to nearly every measure that promotes the people's welfare. And this year the Republican platform, and the Republican candidate for President, and the men who dominate the party are still of the same stripe. My friends, we are deal- ing here with something beyond reason, something beneath reason. We are dealing with the herd instinct of the dinosaurs. Now, take social security. In 1935, the Democratic Congress put unemployment and old-age insurance on the books — along with public assistance. These are the basic elements of our social security system. The Republicans said that was socialism. They said that was regimentation. They said that the moral fiber of the people would be de- stroyed if they didn't have to worry about their bread and butter in their old age. They fought the whole campaign of 1936 on those insane slogans. Now, all these years have passed. Social security has been broadened and improved three separate times. It is one of the most accepted and most successful monuments to the great administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. But do you think that old talk of the Re- publicans is dead? Not at all. Listen to the man who is now the Republican candi- date for President: "If all that Americans want is security," — I quote him — "they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed, and a roof over their heads." I wonder how many of you want to go to jail to get social security? I don't see anybody volunteering. On another occasion, he said: "In these times, we hear so much of security, security for everything we do . . ." — I am quoting the Republican candidate now — "I should think that the best example of it would be a man serving a lifetime Federal sentence in a Federal prison." Those remarks were made in speeches be- fore he became a Republican candidate for President. Now, he is traveling about the country, saying that he believes in social security. His political advisers have told him that's what the people like and that's what he'd better say. But what counts, in the great office he is seeking, is how he really feels — right here. It has been 20 years since we saw what it could be like to have in the White House a man who failed to feel deep in his heart that security for the individual American is a good thing, and a necessary thing. Yet, this year, the Republicans are asking us to take that risk again. The Republican platform on this subject is as revealing as the candidate's words. The platform states that they want old-age insurance extended to include "those justly entitled to it." Those justly entitled to it — comes from the Republican platform. They showed what they meant by that kind of language in the 80th Congress, when they deprived nearly a million people of their social security protection. They showed it again, last year, when 86 percent of the Republican Congressmen voted against add- ing disability insurance to the social security program. If all a person wants is something to eat in his old age, or a roof over his head when he's disabled, he can go to prison, they say — or on the dole. That is dinosaur reasoning and theirs is the dinosaur approach — a dead and gone approach that the people of this country are not going to revive. Now let me turn to the issue of housing. 703 [278] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents Here I can say — and I am proud of it — that the Democratic record for these past 20 years shows a long series of constructive measures to help all Americans live in decent houses. The Republican record through all that time has been a record of obstruction. Theirs is a record dictated by the real estate lobby — a record of opposing aid to the mid- dle-income families and the low-income families. Back in 1933, when the Home Owners Loan Corporation was set up to end mass foreclosures, the Republican National Com- mittee condemned it as "another New Deal attempt to deceive the taxpayers." When that great venture was finally finished, it had not only saved thousands and thousands of homes for their owners, but it returned a net profit to the Federal Treasury. At the close of World War II, when we turned to meet civilian needs, the Republi- cans fought all slum clearance and public housing legislation. They blocked construc- tive action for 4 long years. They blocked it until the election of 1948, and then they changed their minds a little. The great and comprehensive law we finally passed in 1949 set as our national goal a decent home for every American. Yet ever since, our work for decent housing has been hindered and hobbled by the real estate lobby. They were willing and anxious to use the new law where it helped them, but they have endeavored constantly to sabotage everything that helped the public. You here in California know all about that lobby. It took your State Supreme Court to save the low-rent housing program in Los Angeles. But the real estate lobby's ac- tions spread far beyond this State. They and their Republican friends have tried time and again to kill the public housing program. It has been a sickening spectacle to watch the vast majority of the Congressmen and Senators who bear the label of a once-great party, jump through the hoop whenever the real estate lobby cracks the whip. You ought to have a grandstand seat on that, like I have. And why is the Republican Party against slum clearance? For the simple reason that there is money to be made from human misery. And the dinosaur minds who con- trol that party are more interested in profits than they are in the welfare of the people. And what is true of housing is also true of health. In thinking about the Nation's health, we must recognize one basic fact. The costs of medical care are prohibitive for many mil- lions of our people. I am not talking only of the very poor who might, if they are lucky, avail themselves of charitable care. Neither am I talking of the rich or the well-to-do — but of all the millions in between. These people are doomed to illness, sometimes to death, simply because they are neither rich enough nor poor enough to fit into the scheme of things as practiced in this country in the field of modern medicine. That to me is a denial of the very mean- ing of democracy. That is why I have devoted so much thought, so much attention to the problem of good medical services for our people. That is why some years ago I proposed the addition of health insurance to our social security system. That attack on that proposal was fantastic in its scope, its bitterness, its vilification. It tried to obscure the problem by fastening on the old scare word of socialism. Naturally the Republican Party in the Congress spear- headed and fronted that attack. And, as usual, the party's strategy and tactics — and the money — were supplied it gratis, by the lobby which claims exclusive jurisdiction in the field of human health. This is the medical lobby — and what is the medical lobby? Why, it's a reactionary fac- tion within that tightly held national leader- ship of the American Medical Association. The lobby is not the great bulk of the devoted doctors in this country, though it plays freely on their fears and extorts its money out of them. The lobby is, in reality, just a few men and an advertising agency. And now this little clique has moved over 704 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 4 [278] to run the National Professional Committee of Eisenhower and Nixon. I made a speech in Philadelphia on health the other day, and they folded up on their fight on me. Now they are going to help Eisenhower and Nixon. I would like to give you a little illustration of how this lobby works. I have a clipping from the Nashville Tennessean dated Sep- tember 26, 1952. It shows the photostat of a letter dated 3 days earlier, on the stationery of a local Nashville doctor. Apparendy this letter went to a great number of his col- leagues. It reads: "Dear Doctor: "I have been asked as a member of Senator Nixon's Parade Committee to ask a few of my friends to drive their cars in the Nixon parade on Saturday, September 27. "We want to count on you to be there or if you can't participate to have someone come in your place. In order to make the best im- pression on the general public, we are ask- ing you to use a small car if that is at all possible. . . ." I want to read that last sentence over again so you won't forget it: "In order to make the best impression on the general public, we are asking that you use a small car if at all possible." I was over in Montana the other day, and the Governor of Montana is a fine gentleman and a good Democrat. And he told me that the farmers up there had been quarreling about their condition, and one farmer was in such shape that he had come to the point where he had to wash his own Cadillac. That's what's the matter with these doctors in Nashville. They are so well of! they can't find a little car that the poor man has to ride around in. Nearly a year ago, I appointed a Commis- sion on the Health Needs of the Nation. That Commission has just held hearings here in San Francisco, so perhaps you are familiar with its membership and its pur- pose. Its members are distinguished and its purpose is nonpolitical. It has the task of surveying the whole health problem and the resources of this Nation, and recom- mending to the next administration the best solution that it can devise. I have urged no solution upon this Com- mission. I have no desire, now, to advocate or press for any particular formula or meth- od. All I want is some kind of effective action on the problem with which we are faced. But the medical lobby has made sure that we shall not keep the problem of medical care out of politics. The lobby has embraced the Republican candidate and he has returned the favor. Less than 3 weeks ago, he gave out a state- ment containing his latest views on health. That statement is all of a piece with the vio- lent propaganda of the medical lobby. The General is doing his part to entice the medi- cal professional people in this country into the narrow and confining lair of the Repub- lican Old Guard. I don't think they are going to go. There are more good doctors than there are in that little clique that runs the Medical Association. Wherever you look in the Republican campaign today you will now find only dinosaurs in the positions of command. The surrender has been complete — to the Old Guard — to the lobbies — to the moss- backs of every description. But it is more than a surrender. It is the tragedy of an able and amiable human being, torn out of the life he was trained to follow and shoved around as a tool for others. At the Republican Convention last July,, it seemed that the dinosaur wing of the Republican Party had suffered a real defeat. If they had nominated your Governor, Earl Warren, it would have been clear that the National Republican Party was on the way to give real recognition to its much abused liberal wing. But they turned away from your liberal Governor, and chose another Californian who is not worthy to tie Gov- ernor Warren's shoes. That was the first sign of what really happened. Now, 3 months later, what- ever progressive forces may actually exist within the GOP, have been driven further 705 [278] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents than ever from the center of the stage. Where is Earl Warren now? Where is Wayne Morse? Where is Paul Hoffman? They staged what seemed to be a batde. They won what seemed to be a victory. But all of this has been taken from them. That old dinosaur has come back. Its hide was only dented. The skin was broken in a place or two. But the wound was never serious or long to heal and every trace of the wound has vanished now. The only wounds now remaining from the Battle of Chicago are the wounds of the supposed victors, who've been kicked off the platform into the bushes. And as for their commander, their Gen- eral, the man who was to lead them to a new and better party — a rejuvenated party — why he's become the saddest spectacle of all. On my trip west across the country, I have been critical of the Republican candi- date. I have not found it easy and I have not found it pleasant; for he was my friend, a man I completely trusted. He was the man I chose to be the chief lieutenant in some of the greatest and gravest under- takings of my administration. It has been hard for me to have to tell the people the things I have been pointing out to them in recent days. I would never have engaged in criticism of the General, merely for partisan purposes. No, the reason I have spoken out is far, far deeper than that. The reason is that the General has be- trayed himself. He has betrayed himself by his wild attacks on policies and programs for which he had a great responsibility — and for which he received great credit. He has betrayed himself by his rejection of the good men in both parties who saw his nomination as a way of elevating this cam- paign to serve the interests of this Nation and the whole free world. He has betrayed himself by his surren- ders— all of his surrenders — to the narrow, selfish men and shortsighted policies of the Old Guard. A little while ago, there were many peo- ple in this country who went looking for a new leader. Their standards were exacting. They were determined to find the man of highest principle and greatest rectitude — a man of wide experience and great good judg- ment— a man who could and would give to this country the most inspired leadership, in these perilous conditions which we are faced with in the next 4 years. Some of these people went to Paris and brought a general home with them. But now, by every speech and every action, he is showing them — he certainly has shown me — that he is not the man we thought him. He does not measure up. But all is not lost. For we are very fortu- nate that while some people sought their man in Paris, there were others — Democrats I'm glad to say — who went the other way. They went to Springfield, Illinois, and drafted Adlai Stevenson. And Adlai Stevenson, my friends, in every speech, in every action, has shown himself to be the man those other fellows failed to find in Paris. He, and not the General, has proved in this campaign his fitness to take on the great hard tasks of leading this coun- try in the way that we must — and should — go- Thank you. note: The President spoke at 2:30 p.m. in the Palace Hotel at San Francisco. In his opening words he referred to Lyle Cook, chairman of the meeting, and Dr. Henry F. Grady, who had served as U.S. Ambassador to India, Greece, and Iran. Later the President referred to, among others, Governor John W. Bonner of Montana, Governor Earl Warren of California, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, and Paul G. Hoffman, president of the Ford Foundation and former Economic Cooperation Administrator. 706 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 4 [279] 279 Address in the Oakland Auditorium. October 4, 1952 I APPRECIATE most highly this wonder- ful welcome, and I am more than happy to be here with you tonight. I am enjoying my visit to your great State, and I wish I had time to go all over it, but I can't do that this trip, it's too big. I have to make two trips. I was welcomed into this great State of California yesterday by your great Governor, Earl Warren. I have genuine respect for your Governor, and also a great deal of sympathy. He has been under attack by some of the same special interest lobbies that are always after me. And so I know just what he is up against. You know what I was afraid of — I was afraid that the Republican convention was going to nominate your Governor to be their candidate for President. That would have given the Democrats something to worry about, sure enough. But the Repub- licans didn't do it. Earl Warren is much too liberal for them. He really ought to be a Democrat. As you may have heard, at least it's a rumor around here that I am out here on a political trip — campaigning for the Democratic ticket. Well, I am! A campaign is not just a matter of enter- tainment. It is the way we discuss and settle the great issues of the day. And in this fate- ful year of 1952, the greatest issue is un- doubtedly the foreign policy of the United States. For that may determine whether we have war or peace. The Democrats did not place foreign policy in the campaign. The top snollygoster of the Republican Party did it, and I want to explain that I am not re- ferring to the General. I was never in my life more serious about what foreign policy means to war or peace than I am now. I believe this country is facing a great danger — and that the best hope of meeting it is to have a Democratic vic- tory this fall. Now I shall explain to you why that is true. In recent years this country has been del- uged with the greatest outpouring of false- hoods about our foreign policy that was ever cooked up by a group of irresponsible politicians. They have been trying to get the American people to believe that our whole history since World War II is the exact opposite of what really happened. They have been trying to convince us that white is black; that our policy of resistance to communism has been one of betrayal; that our great success in uniting the free nations to defend freedom has been a failure; that our strength is weakness; that one of the most courageous and decisive actions ever taken by this coun- try in the cause of freedom — the defense of Korea — is a "useless war." This wave of filth has but one purpose — and one only. That is to win the election for the Republicans. So long as this propaganda was being car- ried on by a minority of reckless and irre- sponsible Republican extremists, it repre- sented no great threat to us. But within the last few weeks, it has been joined in by the Republican presidential candidate himself. The Republican candidate, until very re- cently, has not been an irresponsible outsider in foreign policy. He has had the trust and the confidence of the people in foreign policy matters. He has had my complete con- fidence and trust, also. But now he is abusing that trust, and I am very sad and sorry about that. He is spreading the false version of his- tory that has been copyrighted by the extremists in the Republican Party. These are the people who have been trying to up- set our whole foreign policy. The course they advocate would lose us our allies, weaken our defenses, and bring us closer to a world war. 707 [279] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents One of the things the Republican candi- date is talking about lately is the conflict in Korea. All Americans are deeply involved in this matter. The Republican candidate is saying that the Korean conflict is a blunder and a bungle, and implies that it is something that he could fix up overnight. These statements are simply not true. The best explanation I know as to why we are in Korea was given by Capt. James Jabara of Wichita, Kansas, who had been fighting there in our Air Force. He put it very, very simply. "We are fighting in Korea," he said, "so we won't have to fight in Wichita." He is right. We are fighting in Korea so we won't have to fight in Wichita, or in Chicago, or in New Orleans, or on San Francisco Bay. Now I want to explain to you why this is so. In the period right after the end of World War II, there were different opinions about what the Russians would do. Some men, like Adlai Stevenson and Averell Harriman, warned us to be on our guard. Others, like General Eisenhower, said we had nothing to fear from the Russians. But we all worked together for a policy of cooperation with the Soviet Union, hoping that they would become peaceful partners. I think we gained far more than we lost by trying to cooperate with the Russians. We showed that we really wanted peace, and, as a result, we gained the respect and trust of the free peoples everywhere around the world. Without that, we could never have gotten other free nations to join with us in our great effort to check Communist aggression. But it became increasingly clear that men like Stevenson and Harriman were the ones who were right about the Soviet intentions. The Russians did not want peaceful coopera- tion. They wanted to extend their power throughout the world by whatever means they could. When the Russian intentions became clear, we moved on a worldwide scale to meet them. Never in history has a nation recognized its responsibilities more promptly, or used its resources more vigorously to defend the peace. We established a comprehensive plan for resistance to aggression throughout the world. In all that we did we were guided by the principles of the United Nations — the princi- ples of peace and justice. We did not undertake to coerce our allies; we did not initiate counter aggression. We remained true to the ideals of our civilization. We undertook to restore the political and economic strength of the free nations — that they might defend themselves better against the attacks of communism from within and without. We have given military aid to countries that could use it in the cause of freedom. We have built a great alliance under which most of the free nations of the world are firmly banded together for our mutual defense. This is, I believe, the most magnificent diplomatic achievement in his- tory. For making this possible we shall be forever indebted to two of the greatest Secre- taries of State this Nation ever had — Gen. George C. Marshall and Dean Acheson. Most of the free nations have used the help we gave them and repelled the onslaught of communism. The one tragic exception was the Republic of China. We sent over $2 billion worth of economic and military aid to China, but in spite of this, the Chinese Gov- ernment was unable to marshal its resources or lead its people successfully. We helped China, but China proved unable to help her- self. Except for China, the free nations, with our aid, have held the line throughout the rest of the world. Then came the great and crucial test, the invasion of South Korea by the Communist armies in June 1950. This was the great challenge. If the Com- munists could get away with this, no other international boundary would be safe. This 708 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 4 [279] was the kind of challenge that Hitler had given to the rest of the world when he crossed the borders of Austria and Czechoslovakia. Failure to answer that challenge in the thirties had led us into World War II. When the Communist challenge came in Korea, we answered it. We did not an- swer it alone — but with the support and back- ing of the United Nations. We have beaten and battered the enemy in Korea. The Communists have failed to take South Korea, and they are losing the industrial plant of North Korea under the blows of our air power. By meeting aggression in Korea, we have saved the free nations of Asia from catas- trophe. We have protected Japan and For- mosa, relieved the pressure on Indochina, and diminished the threat to India and the Middle East. By standing firm in Korea, we have helped to protect Europe. By our action in Korea, we have saved the United Nations. By holding the line in Korea, we have proved that communism is not invincible — that free men can stand up against it and win. By standing firm in Korea, we have gained enough time to build up the defenses of the free world, and the security of our own country. These are the things which we have ac- complished by our action in Korea. We have held the dike of international order at the point where the flood of aggression threatened to burst through. This has cost us much. It has cost us in human life, it has cost us in wounds and human suffering. There are many families in this land who have sacrificed a member in this struggle to hold the line against aggression. To those families I would like to say one thing. Never believe that your loss has been in vain. Some will try to tell you that these brave lives were lost in a useless war, but that is not true. The cause for which these men died is just. It was the cause of our country, but more than that, it was the cause of all mankind, throughout the world, long- ing and striving for peace and justice. Though we cannot foretell the future, we should be firm in our faith that such sacri- fices in the cause of right and justice will bring about the end we seek — the goal of per- manent peace for all men. I would like to be able to assure you to- night that the fighting in Korea will soon be at an end, and that we will soon have the peace we are striving for. But I cannot speak for the enemy. Beaten and battered though he is, we are dealing with a fanatical adversary; and we cannot be sure that he has yet learned his lesson. But we can take comfort in the fact that with every month our defenses are growing, and the combined strength of the free nations is increasing. We are working toward the day when our strength will be so compelling that the Soviet leaders will give up the dangerous game of aggres- sion— the day will come when they will agree to enforceable compacts for disarma- ment and for keeping the peace. Now that is what we are working for. Now, my friends, these are the hard facts of our present situation. There is no gim- mick or gadget that will change these hard facts. There is no shortcut to peace. There is no superman who can solve our difficul- ties for us. It is very dangerous to lead people to think that there is some magical way out of the present struggle. It is an injury to our national security to tear down the confidence of the people in those policies of defense which we have all worked so long, and so successfully, to put into effect. But that is what the Republican candi- date is doing. Now, I am not going to let him get away with it. He played a great part in our foreign policy. As a general, during and after the war, he was involved in a great many of the decisions that have gone into our present program for peace. He owes his popularity to the high positions he has held, and the good work he has done in 709 [279] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents them. I do not wish to detract from his achievements. But when he turns around and slanders our national effort as a proces- sion of blunders and failures, then I am going to call him on it. Just let me give you an example. A few days ago he made a speech in which he attacked our policies in Berlin and Korea. In these two cases, he applauded the work of the Armed Forces, but he added, and I quote: "I deplore the incompetence of the political leaders . . . which made the mili- tary action necessary. Our servicemen were summoned to snatch military victory from political defeat." This is part of the usual Republican line, exalting the military, and blaming every- thing on the State Department and on our other civilian agencies. But I am surprised that the Republican candidate should stoop to it in the cases of Berlin and Korea. He was personally involved in our decisions about Berlin and Korea. He knows what happened in those cases. And so do I. My friends, this puts me in a very difficult position. As the Commander in Chief I do not want to engage in a public discussion about the merits or the performance of any of our officers. I have always believed in backing my subordinates to the hilt, and not complaining when they make mistakes — as all of us do, sometimes. But when one of them brings past performance into politics, and tries to stir up the people against the civilian side of our Government — then I feel I ought to say something about past per- formance, too, and set the record straight — which I am going to do. In the case of Korea, the decision that is most often attacked as "political incom- petence" is the withdrawal of our troops. But, at the bottom, that was a military decision. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked, as far back as 1947, whether, from the point of view of our military security, we ought to keep our troops in Korea. They were asked whether we ought to keep our troops in Korea. They advised that we had little strategic interest in maintaining our troops there, and that we could well use those troops elsewhere. The Chief of Staff of the Army, at that time, who joined in the recommendation, was the man who is now the Republican candidate for President. Now, this decision may have been right, or it may have been wrong. That is not the point. Personally, in view of the conditions that existed then, I think it was right. But it is wrong for the Republican candidate to attack that decision now, without telling the people that he was at least pardy responsible for it. In the case of Berlin, the Republican candi- date was more deeply involved. He and the other Republican campaigners are now saying that the Berlin blockade of 1948 was the fault of this Government be- cause we did not have a firm arrangement guaranteeing our right of access by land to Berlin. Now, of course, the real reason for the Ber- lin blockade was not anything the allies did or did not do. It lay in the desperate Rus- sian desire to retaliate against the growing strength of Western Europe, and shatter our prestige in Germany. The Berlin blockade was due to the bad faith and hostility of the Russians — and, as Americans, we ought al- ways to be proud that we broke that block- ade without starting a war. But the fact remains that if we had ob- tained guaranteed access to Berlin — back in 1945 — it would have been harder for the Russians to start their blockade in 1948. Why did we not have a clear right of way to Berlin that the Russians could not violate? Why? I ask you, why? Well, I am going to tell you why. We should have had it. In 1945 I pro- posed to Stalin directly that we obtain free access to Berlin simultaneously with the withdrawal of our troops from the Soviet Zone in Germany. The arrangements were to be worked out by the military leaders in the field. Our commanding general in Europe, who 710 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 4 [279] is now the Republican candidate, was in- formed of his responsibility to work them out. He had instructions that unrestricted access to Berlin was to be a condition of the withdrawal of our troops. He delegated this job of negotiation to General Clay, and left Europe. General Clay met with the Rus- sian military leaders, and got only an oral assurance from them, instead of a precise agreement in writing. Our troops were withdrawn, our bargaining position was lost and our right of access was never firmly established. General Clay, in his book, admits that this was a mistake. He is honest about it. He doesn't blame the civilian side of the Gov- ernment— which had nothing whatever to do with it. He doesn't even blame the com- manding officer. But his commanding officer should, I think, step up and share some of the blame. The responsibility to arrange free access to Berlin lay squarely on that commanding officer, for I put it there. I want to emphasize, again, that I have not gone into this matter to detract from the great achievements of the Republican candi- date in the military field. There are mistakes in every human career. This mistake was a natural one for the Republican candidate to make, feeling, as he did in 1945, that we had nothing to fear from the Russians. But when he tries to fix the blame on others, and make the whole thing a political issue, then I believe I should give you the facts. These facts come from the records, niy friends, and they cannot be controverted. Now this little story is to me a very re- pealing thing. It shows how far the Re- publican candidate is willing to go in his appeal for votes. This is all of a piece with his whole attack on our foreign policy. His statements about Berlin and Korea are no more re- liable than his statement that our plan of global resistance to communism is "a pro- gram of bits and pieces ... an endless game of makeshift and make-believe." I never thought I would hear words like those from the lips of the man who is now the Republican candidate. He is a man who knows the toil and the cost of building defenses, cementing alliances, and inspiring a common purpose in the hearts and minds of free peoples. He is aware of how easy and how dangerous it is to destroy the com- mon faith and purpose on which the whole structure of our security is built. And yet he does not seem to hesitate now to utter the reckless words that can bring that struc- ture down to ruin. Now, why does he do it? I can think of only one answer. He got the Republican nomination be- cause he had become a prominent figure in our foreign policy. Then, having achieved the nomination, he fell into the hands of the Republican snollygosters. And they convinced him that he couldn't get elected unless he campaigned on the theory that our foreign policy is a failure. So now he is going around the country, campaigning against his own record, and his own principles. My friends, he is a very sad and pathetic spectacle. And I wish for the sake of his- tory, and for the sake of future generations who will read about him in the schoolbooks, that he had not so tarnished his own bright reputation as a commander of men. And I mean that with all my heart. But this is more than a personal tragedy. It is a danger to our national security. I am sure that the American people will reject him. I am going to try my best to see that they do. I am sure that they will vote instead for a man who has shown that he will not stoop to falsification of the facts, or easy promises about the future. I am sure they will vote for a man who has wisdom and experience in foreign affairs, and stoutness of heart. I am sure they will vote for a man who is honest with himself, and honest with the people of this great country. That man is Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. 7" [279] Oct. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents note: The President spoke at 8:30 p.m. in the Auditorium at Oakland, Calif. During his address he referred to Governor Earl Warren of California, who introduced the President at Davis, Calif, (see Item 277 [6]), Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, and W. Averell Harriman, Director for Mutual Security* The address was broadcast. 280 Rear Platform Remarks in Utah and Colorado. October 6, 1952 [1.] Salt Lake City, Utah (Rear plat- form, 7:50 a.m.) Thank you very much for this cordial welcome this early in the morning. I ap- preciate it most highly. I remember how cordial you were when I came here in 1948, and I shall never forget it. I think I told you then about how my grandfather came out here with an ox train load of mer- chandise, and how Brigham Young helped him out. And since that time the records have been examined and the church files show that it actually happened just as I told it. He had the first train of his own loaded with merchandise for the Army, and when he got here the colonel in charge of the post had another freighter that he wanted to hold and he wouldn't accept my grandfather's load of goods. And it almost broke him, and if it hadn't been for Brigham Young it would have broke him — but they worked it out and everybody was happy except the colonel in charge of the post. I have been making this trip to campaign for the Democratic Party. I am happy to do that, because I think you suspect by this time that I am a good Democrat. I believe with all my heart that it is in the best interests of the country for the Demo- crats to win this election. I think we are going to win it. We are going to win on the basis of our record, our platform, and our candidates. On each of these things, when you com- pare the Democratic situation with the Re- publican situation, the Democrats look so much better that there is no difficulty what- ever to make a choice. First, take the record. The Democratic Party has been giving the country good gov- ernment for the past 20 years. At home the country is in better shape than it ever has been. Abroad, we are making good prog- ress in building up our defenses against the terrible threat of Communist aggression. At home and abroad, the Republican Party has been against almost every for- ward-looking proposal that we have made in these years. Now they are trying to re- write history, but I am not going to let them get away with it. I have been reading the record on them, and I am going to keep it up, and tell the people exactly what the facts are. You see, nearly every place I go, somebody in the crowd around the street will let out a yell "Give 'em hell, Harry." Well now, I don't strive for a reputation of that kind. I tell the truth on them, and that's a lot better for the country than giving them hell, be- cause they can't stand the truth. I hope every one of you will have an op- portunity to read the Democratic platform, and the Republican platform, too. They will show you what the difference is between the two parties. I think we have the best plat- form any political party ever adopted, and I think the Republican platform is about the worst one I ever read. Along with everything else they even en- dorsed that "do-nothing" 80th Congress- You remember it? Back in 1948 at Phila- delphia, about 2:30 in the morning, I told the Democratic Convention that I was going to call a special session of Congress and see whether the Republicans in the 80th Con- gress would put their platform into effect. Oh, they had a platform that was intended 712 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 6 [280] to appeal to everybody in the country, so I called them together and they met for about 3 or 4 weeks and didn't do a thing. I knew that was exactly what they would do — be- cause they never do expect to carry out a plat- form even when it's good, but this one is so bad they can't carry it out. If they were to win this election, you could count on them giving you the same sort of treatment you had from that 80th Congress — which won the election in 1948 for me. I told you when I was here in 1948 what the Republicans had been trying to do to your reclamation and power programs. They have been trying to do the same ever since — and you can't trust them. The Democrats have it all over the Repub- licans in the case of candidates — just like we do everything else. And I don't know of any place where that is clearer than it is here in Utah. You have a fine Democratic candidate here for United States Senator — Walter K. Granger. Walter K. Granger has made a wonderful record in Congress, and if you will send him to the Senate, you will have somebody there who will look out for your interests. Now I have known Mr. Granger for I don't know how long — 15 or 18 years — and he has always been on the side of the people. You need a man like that in the Senate worse than ever now — I'll say you need him from this State. For Congress you have Mrs. Reva Beck Bosone. Judge Bosone has also made a grand record in Congress. This is especially true on reclamation matters. If you send her back to Congress, and send Walt Granger to the Senate, you will have a very effective team to work for you on the reclamation projects that mean so much to this great western country. I also hope very much that you will pro- mote your mayor, Earl Glade, to be Governor of this great State of Utah. I hope you will also send that good Democrat that was just introduced to you, Mr. McKay, to Congress. He impresses me as being a wonderful man. The best thing, you know, for your own safety, is to just vote the Democratic ticket and send them all in. I urge you most strongly to vote for our candidate for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. I think it would be a tragedy for the pres- ent Republican candidate to be elected Presi- dent of the United States. He has been a great general, but he has already shown in this campaign that he cannot be depended on to master the great political issues with which we are faced. He has surrendered to the most reactionary elements of the Repub- lican Party. He is not the kind of man we ought to have for President. Now I like him. I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I sent him to Europe to command the NATO military setup, and I have every confidence in him as a military man. But as President and poli- tician, he wouldn't know what to do. Now, on the other hand, I am more than ever impressed each day with what Adlai Stevenson offers to the Nation. He is talk- ing sense to the American people. He is wise. He is courageous. He is honest. He is a man you can trust. And he won't be taken in by any special interest lobby. If you elect him and a Democratic Con- gress, the country will be safe for another 4 years. Again I want to thank you very much for this most cordial welcome. [2.] Provo, Utah (Address at Brigham Young University, 10:05 a.m., see Item 281) [3.] Helper, Utah (Rear platform, 1:20 p.m.) I appreciate that greeting very, very much. I am glad to be back here in Helper once more. I was here in 1948 and gave you some down to earth facts about that "good- for-nothing, do-nothing" Republican 80th Congress, if you remember. Then you did your duty at the polls, and I want to con- gratulate you on the way you voted. I 713 [280] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents understand Carbon County had the best rec- ord of any county in Utah in the vote you gave the Democratic Party in 1948. And I hope you will repeat that again. I am sure you will do it over in 1952, and send Adlai Stevenson to the White House. I have always been interested in the way your good town got its name. They tell me that Helper was named for the helper engines that pull the train up these wonder- ful mountains you have around here. You know, I think the Republican Party needs some helper engines. It would take a whole roundhouse full of these helpers to get them elected this fall, with their terrible record holding them back. As for their candidate for President, I don't think helper engines can get him out of the trouble he is in now. With the crew he has got around him, I don't think he will ever be elected. I just don't think the people are going to elect a President who has sur- rendered to Taft and McCarthy and Jenner and Kem. I am glad to come to your State and tell you that I am proud of the Democratic candidate for United States Senator. Utah has a wonderful man in Walter Granger. He has been one of the best Members of the House of Representatives for the past 12 years, and I know he is going to make a great United States Senator. Your candidate for the House of Repre- sentatives, Mr. Ernest McKay, knows the importance of using our national resources for the benefit of all the people, instead of just the special interests. I met Mr. Glade this morning, the present mayor of Salt Lake City — he was there to welcome me, and I understand he is going to be the next Gov- ernor of Utah. Now when you vote for President and Vice President, remember that this coun- try has never had two better candidates than Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They have shown by their record that they stand for the interests of the common everyday man. I want to tell you this, too. They are tell- ing the truth in this campaign. They aren't like some Republican politicians who are running around distorting the facts and try- ing to rewrite history. You can count on Stevenson and Spark- man to continue the prosperity you now have. You people here in Price Canyon area know the importance of steady employ- ment. Twenty years ago, when the Ameri- can people voted the Republicans out of of- fice, there were 12 to 14 million people out of work in this country. But today our country is working full blast, with over 62 million people in good jobs. I told the students up at the Brigham Young University in Provo this morning that in 1932 when they were graduating, they didn't know where to go for jobs. There were 14 million people out of jobs, and the graduates of that university would be lucky if they got a job at a dollar a day. And then I read them an extract from a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle about the graduation of last June from colleges, in which it was said the students now have so many jobs to pick from, they don't know which one to take. Now I think you had better keep up that situation. And the reason you can do that is because the Democratic Party has courage. This thing did not come about by accident. The Democratic Party has had the courage, the wisdom, and the faith to make our economy work in a way that all Americans, not just a special few, could enjoy prosperity and full employment. Our policy is for the people. You will find that the Republican policy is always a property interest. The Democratic Party's policy is the welfare and benefit of all the people, not just a few. Compare the terrible Republican record and the terrible Republican platform this year with the Democratic record and with the Democratic platform this year, and you can't possibly go wrong because you will vote the Democratic ticket. Study them carefully. You will only come to one conclusion. Vote the Democratic 714 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 6 [280] ticket. Vote your own interests — that is what you are doing. You see, the power of the Government in this country is in the people, and the people exercise that power by voting. You go to the polls and vote for your own interests — vote for the welfare of this great Nation, and vote for peace in the world, by voting the Democratic ticket, and the coun- try will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you a lot. [4.] Grand Junction, Colorado (Rear platform, 5:05 p.m.) Thank you. I appreciate it very much — very much indeed this introduction, and I am particularly happy over that synthetic "truth brigade" that is supposed to be fol- lowing me. You know, I was shadowed in 1948 by somebody, and now I am being shadowed again. You know what's the trouble? We're telling the truth on them, and that really hurts. I am here in one of my many jobs — cam- paigning as a leader of the Democratic Party. It is good to come to a Democratic place like this. You gave me a good big majority in 1948. You have been Demo- cratic since 1932. You have a good Demo- crat representing you in Congress — Wayne Aspinall. Keep him there. He is an excel- lent man. Awhile ago when I heard your national committeeman introduce John Metzger, I didn't know who he was talking about. I know him as Bill, and I think he is all right, and he will make you a good Governor. I have known him a long, long time. Bill is a go-getter, and he will be an asset to Colo- rado and to you. Now I want to call your attention par- ticularly to our candidates for President and Vice President. I don't think that we have ever had abler men to head the Democratic ticket than we have in Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They are both men of experience in government. They are both liberal-minded gentlemen, and they will carry on this great Government of ours in the manner in which it ought to be carried on. And you must elect them in November. I am glad to see the great progress this area is making. I have been reading a copy of your good newspaper just as I came along here. You know, it is a grand paper. I have been in politics for 30 years, and in elective public office for 30 years, and down in Missouri there are 7 metropolitan papers, and I never had one for me in my whole life. If they did get for me, I would know I was wrong. I wish we had newspapers like that in Missouri. We need them. In most places I visit, the newspapers are against the Demo- crats. Now, why that is I don't know. And against the plain people, generally. But your paper is a good one, and I am happy to say that about your newspaper. Your paper told of the progress you are making — when most papers keep telling the people how bad things are. If you listen to most of them, you would think the country is just on the verge of ruin. Well now, here is the quotation from your good paper: "There are more animals in the county this year, as compared with last; there are more acres of bearing orchard and more acres of meadow hay; people own more household furniture; stocks of merchandise are greater; there is more farm equipment, except combines; there has been a great deal of building and improvements; and mining is on the increase." Well now, that's an awful situation for the Republicans to have to swallow in a campaign year. In addition to this, I understand you have a fine new veterans hospital here that will be of great value to this whole area. I con- gratulate you on that record. You are especially fortunate here, but we are having the same sort of situation all over the United States. This prosperity of ours is driving the Re- 715 [280] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents publican politicians almost crazy. That's the reason for those four little men follow- ing me. They can't stand to see the country so well off under a Democratic administration. I was reading a speech by the Republican candidate for President the other day. He was doing his best to prove that this pros- perity did not exist — that it was all done with mirrors, according to him. And at the end he said: "Do you want to stand still, mired in the mud of this New Deal pros- perity, or do you want to march down the shining corridor of progress to the Republi- can idea of prosperity?" Well, what do you think? I know what I think, and I know I am pouring it on them so you won't have to. Do you want to march off under the orders of the Republican general, down that "shining corridor" — whatever that is — or would you just as soon stay behind, stuck in the mud of this terrible New Deal prosperity? The last time the Republicans marched off with us we were a long time getting back where we belonged. Today is the first day of your community chest drive, and I hope you will take a little of that prosperity and give it to help others who need it. That's the American program. One of the things that the Republicans are saying is that this prosperity is due to the defense program, and to the fighting in Korea. That is not true. Don't you be- lieve it. If we didn't have the defense pro- gram, we would be even more prosperous. We would have a lot of things that we are holding back on now, because of defense. That is true of the atomic energy pro- grams, too. We are developing peaceful uses for the atom — like the submarine I started last summer in Connecticut, that has an atomic engine in it. If it weren't for defense, we could go ahead much faster with the peaceful uses of the atom, and of the uranium that you are mining around here in this State. They tell me that the independent ura- nium producers who are doing so much to get this ore out, are running into difficul- ties with existing Government procedures. I am going to look into that matter when I get back to Washington and see if it can't be straightened out, and in a way that will give the little fellow a square break. I am always for the little man. You will find that that is a Democratic policy. If you look over the Republican policy, you will find that they are for property. The Democratic policy is for people. I think the people come first, then the property will take care of itself. We are working for peace. That is what our defense program is for. And with God's help we will get it. Then we will be even more prosperous. At least, we will have more prosperity if you don't elect the Republicans so they can bring on another depression. Your Government under the Democratic Party has worked with you to create the prosperity we now have — and we will keep on doing just that. One of the things we hope to do in the fu- ture is this Upper Colorado River storage project. This will do a tremendous lot for the whole area. The Secretary of the In- terior is working on the planning of this project now, so that the dams can be built in such a way as not to damage the Dinosaur National Monument. I think that Dinosaur National Monument ought to be preserved. In fact, it ought to be enlarged. After this election, we will en- large it to accommodate the dinosaur wing of the whole Republican Party. We will fill it up with the old Republican fossils. Then maybe we could change the name of it to the Republican National Dinosaur Monu- ment. They are still living so far in the past that they never in the world will catch up with the progress of this great Nation of ours. You can't count on the Republicans to continue the progress we are making. They are always obstructing measures for 716 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 6 [280] the good of the people. And I want you to do something for me. I want you to get out the record and read it, find out just how many projects they tried to sabotage, find out their record on every- thing that has been for the welfare and bene- fit of this country; and you will find that the majority of the Republicans in Congress were against them every single time. If you read the record, you won't have any trouble whatever about making up your mind. Now, that record is hard to read. It is in fine print, and it is the dullest document that was ever published in the history of the world. But it has the facts and the figures in it, and if you are interested in the wel- fare of your country, you will read that record, and then you will vote for your- selves on election day. Because it is you that is affected. You are the Government. The people of this country have the power that makes the Government. And when you exercise that franchise, you put the people in there who are to run your Government. And when you don't vote, and when you don't do your duty, you get just the kind of government you deserve. Now, don't forget, on November the 4th, go to the polls and vote for Adlai Steven- son, and this whole Democratic ticket here in Colorado and the country will be safe another 4 years. [5.] Rifle, Colorado (Rear platform, 7:00 p.m.) I appreciate very much that welcome, You know, when I was here in 1948, we just went through. I wouldn't let them do it this time, because I wanted particularly to tell that band how much I appreciated them getting up at 4 o'clock and coming to sere- nade the President down here a few miles to the next stop. The group showed a real and unselfish interest in the Government. If the voters of Colorado and those of the country exercised the patriotism and initia- tive of young people like these, we wouldn't have to urge constantly that they exercise their right to vote. Everybody ought to take it on himself to vote. That is his patriotic duty. There has been a rumor going around that I am out doing some campaigning for the Democratic ticket. Well, I am. That is my privilege as head of the Democratic Party. I am trying to tell you what the facts are and I want you to use your own judgment. That seems to worry a lot of the Republicans for some reason. I just want to tell them this is only the beginning. A lot more of them will be worried before I finish reading the terrible Republican record to the Ameri- can people from one end of this country to the other. I am out here because I believe that world peace, domestic prosperity, and the prin- ciples of justice and decency will be served better by the election of a Democratic ticket. That is just what you are going to do on the 4th of November. Here in this district, you have been ably represented by Congressman Wayne Aspinall. He has done a good job for west- ern Colorado, and I know you will elect him again for another term. I have known Bill Metzger for many, many years. He will make you a good Governor, one that you will be proud of, and I hope you will elect him, too — and I know you will. This year the Democratic Party has at the head of the ticket two of the best candidates this country has ever produced — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Stevenson and Sparkman understand the problems of the little fellow, and they under- stand the problems of the West. They know that locked in the hills of western Colorado you have some of the most valuable natural resources to be found any place in the Na- tion. They know that these resources must be developed for all the people, and not just for the special interests. An example of the way to do this is the Bureau of Mines project for developing gasoline and oil products from coal and oil shale. There are about 717 [280] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents a thousand square miles in this area north and west of Rifle where beds of oil shale, hundreds of feet thick, will yield an aver- age of 15 gallons or more of oil per ton of shale. This project promises to open up a vast new era of industrial expansion. This is a wonderful example of the way the Govern- ment can undertake experimental work and develop resources from which all the people will benefit. But the Republicans are wildly running around the country trying to fool the people into believing that projects like these are "socialism." They say the power dams, reclamation projects, and the whole develop- ment of this mountain area should not be carried forward by your own Government for your own benefit. And now the Republican candidate has caved in to the power lobby. He is going around, too, claiming that the Government projects represent a "philosophy of the left" — whatever that is — and that they are regi- menting people and destroying liberty. Well, I have been looking into this subject as I have traveled around the country for the past 8 days, and I have met thousands of wonderful people, and I haven't seen any- body in slavery. Nobody has complained to me about having his liberty destroyed. So, don't be fooled by this gloomy poppy- cock the Republicans are spreading. Vote for the party that believes in you, and believes in the future development and the prosperity of this great country. You yourselves are the Government of this country. The people are the Government, and the way they exercise the powers of government is at the polls on election day. It is your duty to go to the polls and vote for yourselves. Vote for your own interest. Vote for the welfare of this great Nation. Vote for peace in the world. Vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man, and the whole Democratic ticket, and you will have 4 more years of good govern- ment all across the country. Thank you very much. [6.] Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Rear platform, 7:50 p.m.) Thank you — thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I am greatly enjoying this trip through Colorado. You know, when I was here before in 1948, it was 7:30 in the morning, and I didn't think anybody would be up at that time of day, but the people turned out. They wanted to hear the facts and they wanted to listen — and I see you are doing it better at this time of day, and I appreciate it more than I can tell you. I have enjoyed the visit with your Con- gressman, Wayne Aspinall, about your progress out here, and your problems. Be sure and send him back to Congress because he has Colorado's interests at heart, and he does his job as well as any Congressman in the Congress. And I would like very much to see you vote for John William Metzger. I have known him a long time, and he is a good man and he will make you a good Governor. My principal interest in being out here, however, is to get you to understand some of the issues of this campaign, and under- stand also that the Democrats have nomi- nated a man to head the ticket, and a man for Vice President — two men who are unbeat- able so far as ability and honor and every- thing else is concerned — they'll never have better candidates for the Office of President than Adlai Stevenson, and John Sparkman. You will make no mistake voting for them. I am not running for office this time — I didn't know whether you knew that or not — but I am going to leave the Government of the United States in good hands. Adlai Stevenson is one of the best qualified men ever to run for President. He has been a great Governor of a great State, and he has a lot of experience in foreign affairs. John Sparkman is one of the best men that the Senate has ever had there — and I spent 10 years in the Senate myself, so you know I am paying him a high compliment. One of the things that is most important 718 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 6 [280] to your progress and prosperity out here is the Federal program of reclamation and power projects. I have been telling the people in the West that the Republican Party is against these projects, and I have been exposing the record, showing how the Republicans in Congress have voted to hinder and obstruct and slash appropriations for these great dams and irrigation systems and powerlines. A Republican spokesman piped up the other day, and said this was unfair — that a Republican started the reclamation program. That's right, it was a Republican — Theodore Roosevelt, back in 1902, who started it. He was a Republican who had a great sympathy for the West. And you know what happened to him? He was thrown out of the Republican Party by the Wall Street bankers. He had to go out and set up a party of his own — the Bull Moose party. And the special interest groups have run the Republican Party ever since. The Republican Party always kicks out its liberals, or whips them into line. I could tell you a lot about this, and I will be- fore this campaign is over. The reason the Republican Party can't really be in favor of reclamation and public power, is that they let the private power lobby write their policies for them. The private power lobby has been spend- ing millions of dollars to persuade the people that everything from TVA to Boulder Dam is "creeping socialism." So naturally, the Republicans have to call it the same thing. But it is not. It is a good American pro- gram of developing the resources of the people for the benefit of the people. And the Democratic Party has been doing things through Congress, and getting it done, in spite of the Republican opposition. One of the best things for this whole part of Colorado would be the proposed Colorado River storage project. It would bring more electric power and new and bigger industries to this area. It would mean thousands of acres of new irrigated land, and more water for farms. The plans for this project are just about complete. They are being drawn up in the Department of the Interior, under the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Oscar Chapman. I don't have to tell you people here in Colorado about your fellow citizen, Oscar Chapman. He is one of the greatest friends the people of the West ever had. After Oscar Chapman has approved these plans for the Upper Colorado River storage project, they come to the White House. They have to be approved by the President, and then they go to Congress. Now, I won't be President when that proj- ect gets to the White House, and I can't make any promises for the man who will be there; but I can tell you this, if Governor Stevenson is the President, it will be con- sidered on its merits and decided in the best interests of the people. And his deci- sion won't be dictated by the private power lobby. And that's a lot more than I can say for the Republican candidate. I am afraid he might say that this project is applying the "philosophy of the left" to the Government — and it might help the housewife get the dishes washed — so he will be against it. And that is what he has been saying about some of the Government dams and power projects that are under construc- tion and have been built in these areas. If you want that Upper Colorado storage project, you had better vote Democratic. Some of you were a little careless up here in 1948, and didn't vote the Democratic ticket. But you had better be more care- ful this time. The situation is of vital importance to the welfare of the country, and I tell all the people, when I talk to them, that their interests are at stake. You yourselves are the ones who have the interest in this elec- tion. When you vote on November the 4th you vote for yourselves, because you are the Government. You either vote for progress, you either vote for the improvement of the resources of this country and for the benefit of the people, or you vote against yourselves, 719 [280] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents you vote for a backward-looking crowd who do not believe in the things that have made this great West great. Consider these things, and on election day use your own good judgment. For your own best interests, vote the Democratic ticket straight, and then the country will be safe another 4 years for the welfare and benefit of the Nation as a whole, and for the people that make up the Nation. Thank you very much. note: In the course of his remarks on October 6 the President referred to Representative Walter K. Granger, Democratic candidate for Senator, Repre- sentative Reva Beck Bosone, former Judge of the Salt Lake City Municipal Court, Mayor Earl J. Glade of Salt Lake City, Democratic candidate for Governor, and Ernest R. McKay, Democratic candi- date for Representative, all of Utah, and Senators Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, William E. Jenner of Indiana, and James P. Kem of Missouri. The President also referred to Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, Democratic candidate for Representative, John W. Metzger, Democratic candidate for Governor, and Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary of the Interior, all of Colorado. 281 Address at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. October 6, 1952 I CERTAINLY appreciate that most cordial welcome. I have had a wonderful tour around the United States, starting in Wash- ington, D.C., and going across North Dakota and Montana and the great States of Wash- ington and California and Utah. I am re- minded by the situation here on this stand of Barkley 's dilemma — there's a clock right here in front of me. Barkley was speaking at a gathering — and Barkley is a great speaker, but he has one difficulty and that is he has no terminal facilities. He had a watch which he took out of his pocket and put it on the desk and he spoke about an hour, and then he picked up the watch and looked at it and then put it to his ear and shook it. And some old fellow back in the audience said, "Senator, there's a calendar on the wall behind you." Now, with this clock in front of me, I won't need the calendar. The president of the university said I can take all the time I want. I remember how cordial you were when I was here in 1948. I shall never forget that. I think I told you then about how my grand- father came out here and had a wonderful time with the train that they had refused to accept when he moved into Salt Lake City. And that he and Brigham Young made a deal by which my grandfather was saved, and the mercantile situation at Salt Lake City was helped at a time when they needed it very much. I also appreciate very highly the way that Utah voted in 1948 — although it did help to get me into a lot of trouble for 4 more years. This year I'm making another campaign trip for the Democratic ticket, but this time there's a different man at the head of it. And he is a very fine man — a great and good Gov- ernor and a very great American — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. The President of the United States always has a lot of work to do whether he is cam- paigning or not. His work follows him around day and night wherever he goes. Some of that work is pleasant; some of it is not. Today, I am glad to say, I had a very pleasant piece of work to do. This morning I signed a paper appoint- ing to the Federal Communications Com- mission a distinguished resident of your State, Eugene H. Merrill. I thought you might be interested in that, because I under- stand that Mr. Merrill's father was a mem- ber of the State board of this university. Of course, that was a good recommendation for him, as far as I was concerned. You know, I hear a lot of talk about gov- ernment by crony in Washington. Well that's sheer poppycock — and low politics. 720 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 6 [281] The truth is, of course, that I try to find the best qualified people I can, for the many complicated jobs I have to fill. Some of them are people I knew before, but most of them are not. Of course, I couldn't possibly know all these people. I have to rely on what other people tell me about them. I try in every case to find out all I can. Mr. Merrill might be surprised at the big, thick file we went over before appointing him. But I don't want him to worry — or you, either — because his file was excellent. Of course, all of you know that no sys- tem is infallible. My checking procedure can show what a man has done and what those who knew him think of him, but there is always a question that no check can an- swer finally — how will the man perform when he has the responsibility. When the trials come upon him in his new assignment, can he do the job? That's a matter of char- acter, deep down inside a man. Most of the people I have brought into the Government have stood the test with flying colors — but some few have broken under it. When that has come about, it has hurt, I can tell you. It has hurt me personally. But fortunately for me and for the public service, it has not happened often. Our Government officials and employees are be- ing much abused in this election year. But I want you to know that there is no finer group of people in this world than those who work for you — your servants in the Gov- ernment of this great country of ours. I have done my best, these 7 years, to keep the quality of the Federal Service high, to attract good people and to keep them in their jobs, to defend them against unfair and unproven attacks. I have had some dis- appointments now and then along the way. But, overall, I am proud of the result — proud and rather confident that history will bear me out in what I say. I hope that many of you young people will make Government service your career. I want to encourage you all I can. We are always on the lookout for good people in the public service. We want to keep our Gov- ernment alive and vigorous. We don't want to get bogged down in old ideas and old ways. We want our Government to be full of youth and energy. Now I want to say to you young people, you just don't know how difficult it is to find a man when you need one. Talk about there being no vacancies at the top — the top is al- ways begging for people. So go to work, prepare yourselves, and be ready when the call comes so you can take your job and do your patriotic duty by your Government. Most of you are too young to remember the youth, the energy, the boldness of Frank- lin D. Roosevelt's first administration — after all those years of Republican pomposity and stagnation in Washington. But you are not too young to participate in the new energy, the new vigor, the fresh oudook which will come to Washington next year with Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. When Franklin Roosevelt came to Wash- ington, he had to devise an entire set of basic policies. He had to start from scratch to determine the whole direction which the Government should take to meet the crisis of the early thirties. For his predecessors had no policies — had set no course which could conceivably have met the needs of the country, or the suffering of the 14 million unemployed. When Adlai Stevenson comes down to Washington for his inaugural next Janu- ary— as I am sure he will — I'm glad to say he'll find a very different situation. He will find a government which from Roosevelt's first days has been responsive to the people's needs. He'll find a government which has created policies and programs to meet and master each new situation in this difficult, dangerous, and fascinating century in which we live. Governor Stevenson will not be con- fronted— as Roosevelt was — with an ab- sence of proper basic policies. He will take over a government where basic policies are sound — sound and constant for the forward drive for permanent prosperity at home, 721 [281] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents sound in the careful, steady buildup of strength and security of the whole free world, sound in the search for progress, sound in the search for peace. I am here to tell you young people that I sincerely wish that I was 18 instead of 68. We are facing the greatest age in the history of the world. And if we can do our duty and carry out the program which we have in mind for world peace, we can hope that God Almighty will give the Soviet Union's leaders a softening of the heart, so we can do just that — you young people will see the greatest age in the history of the world. I wish I could see it. The Governor will have no need to invent new policies from scratch. Instead, he will be able to perfect, to improve, to modify as need be, the basic structure that we leave to him. I know he can do that admirably. For he is a man of thought as well as action. His speeches show how clearly and how deeply and objectively he has analyzed our domestic policies and our foreign policies. He has had much good experience and great training, in both fields. Of all the men that I have met, Governor Stevenson ranks as perhaps the best in- formed, the most skilled student and prac- titioner of the great art of government. That is why I have confidence, that when he comes to Washington, he will continue to improve the Government machinery — to per- fect it and make it the most efficient instru- ment for the service to the people. And you, my friends, can feel an equal confidence. Many of you are young, and Adlai Stevenson's will be a young administra- tion. There will be a place in government for a good number of you who qualify to work and serve your countrymen in public life. And in our country — under Adlai Steven- son— there will be places, good places, for those of you who choose to stay and work in private life, instead. For Adlai Stevenson is not only a wise and a good man — he is a Democrat. That means the basic spirit, the fundamental oudook, of the Democratic Party will continue to guide our Government in all its tasks as a servant of the people and as a leader of the world. The underlying differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties boils down to a very simple thing. The Repub- licans believe that the power of the Govern- ment should be used, first of all, to help the rich and privileged people of this country. With them property comes first. The Democrats believe that the powers of the Government should be used to give the common man some protection, and a chance to make a decent living. With the Demo- crats the people come first. The Democratic Party is a political or- ganization that has a heart — it cares about the people — it cares about all the people, rich and poor alike. The Republican Party is ruled by a little group of men who have calculating machines where their hearts ought to be. Sometimes the Republicans aid their clientele by special favors — like the rich man's tax cut bill which was passed by the 8oth Congress over my veto — or like their attempts to give away the Nation's oil re- sources to all the big oil interests. Sometimes the Republicans aid their spe- cial friends by doing nothing — by a philoso- phy of each man for himself and the devil take the hindmost. That's why they've fought such measures as minimum wage laws, social security, and the protection of the right of labor unions to organize. All these things and others like them have been opposed by the Republicans. All of them have been supported and put through the Congress by such Democrats as your former Senator and my good friend Elbert Thomas. The Republican philosophy is really something for you young people to ponder. If you were leaving college in a Republican world, where it was every man for himself, some few of you might do very well. You might get rich. But the devil would take an awful lot of you who happened to be the 722 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 6 [281] hindmost — or even in between. That happened the last time we had a Re- publican administration in this country. Young people came out of college and found themselves competing with 12 or 14 mil- lion other unemployed people. A lot of college graduates were lucky to get day labor, at a dollar a day. Today the problem is very different. Today the problem for most college graduates is to decide which job to take. Let me read you a clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle dated April 6, 1952. It says that thousands of students graduat- ing from colleges and universities this June are facing a major employment problem — which job to take. Job placement officials in schools and across the Nation reported that in many cases jobs are so plentiful that students have already started choosing be- tween five and ten offers, with starting salaries ranging from $250 to $700. And that is the way it should be. That is the kind of problem that Democrats want you to have. If there's one thing that the Democratic Party has proved in the past 20 years, it is that we can have full employment in this country if we have wise government policies. We have shown that it's good economics to have some protection for the farmers, so that they will have some assurance of good prices and a steady income. We have shown that it's good economics to have full employment at good wages. We have shown that it's good economics to help the small businessman, so that he can add to the enterprise that is building up this country. We have shown that it is good economics to develop the great natural resources of the country, particularly the water resources of these Western States. All of these measures reinforce one another. If the farmers are prosperous, then industry and labor in the cities have a better market. If the workingmen are pros- perous, then the farmers can sell their prod- ucts in the cities. If both are prosperous, then the storekeepers and the salesmen can be assured of having customers. It's the faith that this can happen, and the courage to take Government action to make it happen, that guides the Democratic Party. I tell you that it's right to have a job, to have the opportunity to work and to earn a decent living. And if the Democrats win this election, you will have men in office who are deter- mined that the powers of your Government shall be used to keep those opportunities for all of you, and enlarge them all the time. A national objective of full employment — and that is the Democratic Party's objec- tive— reflects faith in the future and the courage to do something about it. These qualities show up in international affairs, no less than in domestic affairs. We can take credit for a good many ex- pressions of faith in the last few years — the United Nations, the Marshall plan, the North Atlantic Treaty, the Japanese Peace Treaty, the point 4 program. So far, our faith has been rewarded. The United Nations has not yet become all we hoped it would be — and you can blame nobody but the Soviet Union for that — but it has done a tremendous amount of good in a few years' time. Our faith in the people of Western Europe, and their faith in themselves, resulted in one of the greatest achievements of international cooperation in the world's history — the Marshall plan, followed by the mutual se- curity program. I think everyone now agrees that this venture in cooperation saved West- ern Europe from communism. We had a lot of Republican help on those programs for a while, but we also had a lot of Republican opposition. If the Republi- can opposition had prevailed, I have no doubt that France and Italy and almost all of Western Europe would be under the Com- munist yoke today. And now the Republi- can opposition appears to be in complete con- trol of the Republican Party. The fact is, the Republican Party just does 723 [281] Oct. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents not seem able to see or understand what it takes to meet the menace of Communist aggression and subversion. Let me give you an example. Of all our many programs to stop com- munism, we get the most return for the least money under the point 4 program. In that point 4 program we teach other people what we have learned, and they use our technical knowledge and material aid to increase their standards of living. When people in the underdeveloped countries start making real progress against disease and poverty, they can stand against communism and its false promises. When they feel hopeless about the future, that's when communism makes its inroads. You in Utah probably know more about point 4 than almost anybody else. The for- mer president of Brigham Young Univer- sity, Dr. Franklin Harris, was one of the pioneers in point 4 work — long before it was called point 4. He spent a long time in Iran, giving technical assistance, and after that a lot of students came from Iran and studied here in Utah. Then they went back to Iran and put into practice what they had learned. That's the simple inexpensive idea we built on when we launched our point 4 program. Before I left Washington, I asked whether men from Utah were still working in Iran under point 4. I found that 23 men from Utah, five of them from right here in Provo, are in Iran today. I know you are proud of them, and I am sure I am. I often think whether Iran, with all its troubles, will be able to keep its freedom and independence, and that, I think, will be determined by the unselfish, people-to-people help under point 4; the kind of help in which the former president of this university was a pioneer. Now, what do the Republicans think about this program? On March 21, 1950, the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted by more than 4 to 1 to kill point 4 even before it could get started. Over in the Senate, the Republicans voted 28 to 5 to kill the program, while setting up another commission to make another study. Only last May, the Republicans in the House voted by 132 to 36 to cripple the point 4 program in all Asia, by cutting the appro- priation request in half. That is the kind of reckless, shortsighted opposition we have faced all along the way. This is isolationism. Some of you may have thought all the celebrating at the Republican Convention in July meant that the Republican Party had finally buried its isolationists. Any hope that such a glorious event had actually occurred, must surely have been squelched, when Senator Taft began to dictate his presidential candidate's position. To get Senator Taft's support, the candidate has had to swallow isolationism whole. The fine principles he once expressed about in- ternational cooperation, have now become mere differences of degree between him and Senator Taft. Every 4 years the Republicans take their outworn, discredited philosophy antl dress it up in a new disguise — and try to sell it to the American people. They try to convince the people it's been made over into some- thing different. This year, they tried to clothe it in the shining armor of a national hero. But before the campaign has ended, each 4 years, the new disguise wears mighty thin. In fact, you can see through it, and you can see that nothing's changed. This year, I fear that the disguise came off even sooner than usual. It's the same old Republican Party, no matter who may carry the banner out front. It's the same old party that has opposed every progressive step these past 20 years. It's the same old party that has tried to turn the power dams over to the private power companies, and has restricted social security, has fought Federal aid to education, and tried to kill the point 4 program even before it began. It is the party without faith, with- out vision, and without courage. 724 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] And you young men and women must realize you can not make your way into a brave new world under a Republican regime. The future does not lie with them — it rests with the Democratic Party. Twenty years ago, my friends, we nearly lost our free society. Twenty years ago, millions of our young people went out into an America that seemed almost hopeless to them, worthless and destructive of their own human rights and needs. If it had not been for Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, our free society might truly have collapsed from within, and the whole course of our history might have been changed. You young people, in your generation have not had any such experience. You come into a world that has had its dangers, many of them, but they are external dangers, not of our own making. They are dangers we can face together, with courage and conviction, because we have a way of life that is worthwhile to all of us. That we may keep that way of life we should by all means elect these good Demo- crats— and send Adlai Stevenson to the White House. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 10:05 a.m. in the Brigham Young University Stadium at Provo, Utah. During his address he referred to, among others, Vice President Alben W. Barkley, Dr. Ernest L. Wilkinson, President of the University, Eugene H. Merrill, newly appointed Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, and his father, Joseph F. Merrill, a member of the Board of Trustees of Brigham Young University, 1 939-1 952. 282 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Colorado. October 7, 1952 [1.] Malta, Colorado (Rear platform, 9:30 a.m.) Good morning. I am certainly glad to be here this morning. I have had a grand time watching the train go through Tennessee Pass. I heard my grandfather talk about it many a time. He used to cross with an ox team a litde higher up. I have been seeing some fine scenery in this mountain country of yours. I have been talking with one of the nicest groups of State and local candidates I have ever met. You can't go wrong on November the 4th if you go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and elect for the House of Repre- sentatives, Wayne Aspinall, and for Gover- nor, Bill Metzger — two fine gentlemen. And while you are doing that, the Demo- cratic ticket is headed this year by one of the country's great leaders — Adlai Stevenson. I think Adlai Stevenson will make a great President. He has experience and integrity, and he will drive forward with the great ad- vances we have made for the welfare of all the people. Senator John Sparkman is an excellent running mate for Governor Stevenson. Senator Sparkman knows the problems of the average man, and understands what it means to stand up and fight for the average man. Here in this area you have some of the richest mineral deposits in the world. I am told that 75 percent of one of the world's most important minerals is produced near here. I understand that the Leadville drainage tunnel, built with the help of Federal funds, has helped revive metal mining in this area. The cost of that tunnel will be repaid many times over in the lead and zinc that is mined as a result of it. That is an example of how the Govern- ment's resources can be used for the benefit of all the people. That is what the Democratic Party believes in — and there are many, many instances 55-672—66^ -49 725 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents throughout the country where Federal proj- ects are contributing to our welfare and prosperity. But there are still some who call these projects socialism. I think you will agree with me it is just the plain commonsense way to use the powers of the Government for the benefit of the people. That is what the Democratic Party has always stood for, and what it al- ways will stand for. So think it over. Study the record of the two great parties. I want each one of you to ask yourselves which political party has done most for Colorado and for your family and your children. All you need do is just do a little thinking in your own welfare and interest. Especially is this neighborhood here lucky in the fact that there have been Democratic administrations in Washington. Now I am very much interested in the historical background of this great mining area. I read all the stories and all the books I can get on the men who were at the top of the heap when Leadville was the greatest mining center in the world. I read stories about H. A. W. Taber and his silver mine and his wedding in Washington with Grover Cleveland a guest at the wedding of Taber and his second wife. And I have read a lot of cloak and dagger stories about things that happened in the silver and gold mines here in Leadville. When I was out here on several occasions, I have come to Leadville and looked the city over on account of its historic background. And now with the construction of this Gov- ernment project, maybe we can bring Lead- ville back as the greatest mining center in the history of the world. And I hope we can do that. Now remember this, that it is your inter- est that is at stake. We have a wonderful ticket nationally and statewide. For your own best interests go to the polls and vote for yourselves on November the 4th, and we will have 4 more years of good government in the United States for the benefit of the people. Thank you very much. [2.] Salida, Colorado (Rear platform, 11 a.m.) Thank you — thank you very much. I cer- tainly do appreciate that welcome. I wish I could come back to Salida. I have been here many times with my family, and each time you always treat me better than you did the last time — and that makes me want to come back. I have always been very much interested in this part of the world. When we stopped up at Malta, I couldn't help but think of the wonderful stories I have read of that great mining center and some of the men it pro- duced— as well as metal. My wife's grandfather always spent his summers in Buena Vista, and he had a sil- ver mine up on top of one of those moun- tains; and it's still there — and the silver is still there. So I feel always very comfort- able when I come to this part of the world. Yesterday and today I have been travel- ing through your wonderful State. I have been seeing many of your State and local candidates. I am sure that if you want Colo- rado to move forward, you will go to the polls and elect the Democratic ticket on the 4th. The gentleman who just introduced me, Wayne Aspinall, is one of the best Congress- men in the Congress. He is one I hope you will keep there as long as he wants to stay. There are a great many there, though, that I would be perfectly willing to get rid of. And he is not one of them. I have been acquainted with your candi- date for Governor for a long time. He is a fine young man, and I hope you will elect him Governor. Bill Metzger has been a friend of our family for many years. I am proud to be campaigning for these candi- dates, and hope I have helped them to- day and not hurt them. My only object in getting into this cam- paign is my sincere desire to serve the wel- fare of this country. Now, my friends, you are the Govern- 726 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] ment. The Constitution says that the powers of Government shall rest in the people in this great Republic of ours. It is you that says who shall be President, who shall be Vice President, who shall be Governor, who shall be Congressman, and who shall fill the other offices that are vacant in this great State this election year. If you don't use your judgment and do your duty as voters, if you do not inform yourselves on the situation as it exists, then you get bad government — and you get just what you deserve. Our country is now the leader of all the free nations of the world. We are the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. As the leader of the world, we must accept the responsibility of leadership. Sometimes we think it would be fine if we could build a fence around ourselves and not accept this responsibility. We tried to do that once, back in 1920. It didn't work. It simply brought on the Second World War. We can't do it now. These are critical times you are going through, because the danger of Communist aggression threatens us with another world war. It will take all the wisdom, all the courage, all the patience, and a lot of hard work to avoid an all-out war. Now to meet that responsibility we must have a man for President of the United States who understands just exactly what all that means. That man is Adlai Stevenson. He is a civilian, trained and skilled in civil government. He has had experience as a great Governor of one of the greatest States in the Union. He has also had excellent experience in foreign affairs. I am sure that he will carry on the policies which have made this country great. And under him, the civil power, the people's power, will continue to be supreme in the Government. We have, on the other side of the picture, a general who has been nominated by the Republicans to run for President. I have been very fond of this general. I liked him very much, but his whole life has been spent as a military man. He has a military mind, which is a very peculiar one. I have had a great deal to do with the military mind, ever since I went to Washington, and I think I understand it pretty well. That is no reflection on our generals. They are great men in their line, but their training doesn't fit them or prepare them for the responsibilities of civil government. Moreover, the Republican candidate has fallen in with a pretty bad crowd, the re- actionary Old Guard, which has taken him into camp. Some of the advice he has been getting lately could ruin our prosperity, wreck our whole foreign policy, and en- danger the peace of the world. We don't want that to happen. We want to continue the prosperity of this great country of ours. We certainly don't want to get into a third world war by wrecking our economy at home or by reckless action overseas. I think, in your own interest, you must look at all this very carefully. You should vote for your own welfare, and the welfare of this country. You must have in mind the ability of this great Nation to keep the peace of the world. You must have those things in mind. There is only one action you can take, if you do have those things in mind on the 4th of November, and that is to vote the Demo- cratic ticket, and vote for every man on it. In that way you will assure good govern- ment for the United States and for its ap- proach to the peace of the world and the welfare of the Nation for the next 4 years. Thank you very much. [3.] Canon City, Colorado (Rear plat- form, 1:10 p.m.) I am certainly pleased to be back here. I remember coming through here one after- noon after dark, and you had a wonderful turnout but nothing like this. I am certainly glad to have a chance to go through the canyon in daylight. It was moonlight when I went through it before. And, of course, I am not on a vacation. I saw a lot of vaca- 727 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents tioners up there in the canyon and wished I could be with them. I am here campaigning for the Democratic ticket as President of the United States. The head of the party is one of my five jobs. The President has five jobs, any one of which is more than a full-time job for one man, but he has to do all five of them, whether he likes it or not. I want to say to you that you have a wonderful ticket here in Colorado. Con- gressman Marsalis was one of the ablest Congressmen that ever came to Congress. You turned him down in 1950 and you had better send him back this time, when you have the opportunity. I have known John Bill Metzger for many years. I think very highly of him. I think he would make you a good Governor, and that is the reason I am speaking for him. Now, the national ticket is one that I am very proud of. I hope you have been hearing or reading Governor Stevenson's speeches. He has been talking sense to the American people. He has been talking facts and issues. I wish the Republicans would stick to the facts and to the issues, but of course they won't, because they know as well as I do that the facts and the record would show them up. So what they do is to try and fool the people by rewriting the record and pre- tending that everything was the exact oppo- site of what really happened. They think, if they tell these stories over and over you will forget what really happened and come to believe their version of it. This is very dangerous, and you want to watch out for it. To help you do that, I will give you just one example of something a lot of you know about firsthand; that is our rural electrifica- tion program, a program which has helped the farmers of Colorado bring electric power to nearly eight times as many farms as it had 20 years ago. Seventy-eight percent of all the farms in this State are now electrified, and the figure is growing all the time. Now that is true all over the farm belts. That is true wherever there are farms. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent had the nerve to stand up in Omaha the other day and say that the 80th Con- gress had gladly appropriated $800 million for REA, and that proved the Republicans just loved electrification. What he did not say was this: There were five record votes on funds for REA during the life of that Congress, and every single time the Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly to slash those funds. The only reason REA got the appropria- tion— the authorization, not the appropria- tion— got the authorization for $800 million was that practically every Democratic Mem- ber of Congress voted for it, and a handful of friendly Republicans helped them to put it over. And then you know what hap- pened? In the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, the senior Republican Member of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate succeeded in getting the operations ap- propriation— the appropriation that would put this $800 million into effect — succeded in getting it cut $700,000 so the REA outfit could not operate. Eight hundred million dollars all right, but they would not let us spend it. Yet the Republican candidate wants you to believe the Republican Party favored REA 4 years ago. That is what I mean by re- writing the record. Now I want you to realize they pull the same kind of stunt in every other field. So, no matter what you are interested in, you had better not take their word for it. Look at what they do, not what they say. If you want the evidence on that, I hope you will take the Congressional Record and read it. It is the dryest reading in the world, but the record is there. Read the fine print. See how they vote — and you will find that the great majority of the Republicans always have voted wrong against the people and for special interests. They don't do things for the little man, because they don't have any heart for him. They have a calculating machine where their 728 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] heart ought to be — and that calculator works only for the big lobbies, for the special interests, the ones who pay the bills for the Republican Party and call the tune. Don't vote for an outfit like that. It won't be good for you, and it won't be good for the country. It won't serve your interests. Vote for yourselves. You are the Govern- ment. The power of the Government in this great Republic of ours is lodged in the people, and their way of exercising that power is to vote on election day, and to vote in their own interests. Vote for the welfare of the greatest Re- public in the history of the world. And vote for the welfare of the world as a whole, because we are now the free leader of the whole world. If you do that, you will vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman and you will have the country in safe hands for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [4.] Pueblo, Colorado (Rear platform, 2:32 p.m.) Thanks for that fine welcome. You were very kind when I was here 4 years ago. And I appreciate it this time, too. I suspect you know why I am here. I am campaigning for the Democratic ticket. You have got some good people on the ticket here in Colorado. For Congress, John Marsalis, your fellow townsman here in Pueblo. I certainly was sorry when you didn't send him back in 1950 — you missed something, for John Marsalis is a wonder- ful man — and I hope you will rectify that situation now. You have a very fine young man for Gov- ernor, John W. Metzger. He will make you a good Governor. Then there is the national ticket — Adlai Stevenson for President, and John Spark- man for Vice President. Both of them are men you can trust to work for you and look out for your interests. Their records prove they are real friends of the workingman and the farmer — and of all the people. That's a lot more than you can say for the Republican candidates. Their presidential candidate has no record in civil government at all. He has been in the Army for 40 years. And as for their vice-presidential candi- date, you have been hearing about his financial — personal finances, but what is more important to you is his voting record in the Congress. And it's simply awful. He has voted against public housing. He has voted against REA appropriations. He has voted against price controls. He is for Taft-Hartley 100 percent. He has been against the little fellow all along the line. He never looks out for the welfare of the people. Yesterday I told the people in Grand Junc- tion the prosperity we have seems to be driv- ing the Republican Party crazy. They can't bear to see the country so well off under the Democrats. So they are doing their best to try to explain it away. First, they say the country is not prosper- ous at all. Then they tell you that even if it is, there is something wrong about it. Then they say it can't last. And of course they have been saying that ever since 1936, but they keep on trying the same old propaganda, with a new twist now and then. I had a copy of the Farm Journal, that slick magazine published by the Saturday Evening Post for the farmers' benefit, and it had an editorial in it on the front page tell- ing what an awful situation the farmers were in and what they ought to do to get in a better situation. Then over in the reading part of the magazine they had a great long article telling the farmer what to do with his surplus money. I don't know how he got it. Now they are trying to tell you our pros- perity can't last, because they say the defense effort is the only thing holding up our economy. They are trying to get across the notion that we Democrats don't know how to keep this country prosperous except by spending money on national defense. 729 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents Now this is not true. It is just one more Republican falsehood to scare you and con- fuse you in this campaign. The truth is, that our prosperity today is very sound and healthy. Right now we have a total na- tional production of $340 billion. Defense accounts were less than one-sixth of the output. Now get this straight. If it were not for the defense effort, we would be even more prosperous than we are now. The defense effort is making us postpone and put off a lot of things we need — things that would make our country greater and stronger and more prosperous than now. Let me give you some examples. Take Colorado and the whole Rocky Mountain region. You need more water for your agriculture, more power for your farms and industry. The more water and power you can get, the bigger you will grow. That calls for more dams and powerplants and irrigation works, more great projects like Big Thompson. You need more and better roads, lots of them, and so does every State in the Union. I am told your State Highway Commission thinks 70 percent of the secondary roads in Colorado are out of date. I have no doubt about it at all. Then there are schools and hospitals. We need lots more of them all over this country. Our population is growing fast. Just look at your city here. That means a lot of other things to do. We need more houses, better and cheaper houses. We need more food and more consumer goods of every kind. There are thousands of businessmen all ready to expand their plants or build new ones. They see bigger markets ahead. That is the sign of good times in the future. In all these ways we are building a big backlog of peacetime work. And as soon as we can ease off on defense, all this work will be waiting for us. Some day we may reduce the work of your ordnance depot here. But that will be the time we can step up steel production even more than now, to take care of all these dams and roads, and factories and schoolhouses. That means there need be no depression in this country. And there won't be a depres- sion, if you keep the kind of government in Washington that understands these things and will help get new production going in the right places and at the right time. That is one thing the Democratic Party knows how to do. We have proved that. For the first time in history we kept you out of a depression after a big war. In 1949 when things started to slide back, we took quick action; and by the spring of 1950 we were back in boom times. That was before Korea started. The defense buildup had nothing to do with it. But the Republicans are right about one thing. There could be a depression. They ought to know. They are experts at bring- ing them about. The last time they held office, we had two depressions in 12 years — 7 million out of work in 192 1, and 14 million in 1932. They improved the situation in 1932 — but it was a backward improvement. There is no sign they wouldn't let it happen again. They don't seem to have any notion of how to get prosperity and growth. For 20 years they have been working against social security and good wages for workers, and against fair prices for farmers, against aid to small business, against reclama- tion, against flood control, against housing, and just about everything else that helps to build the country. Unfortunately, their candidate for Presi- dent is in no position to make them behave any better, even if he wanted to. He just wouldn't know how, because he has been in the Army for 40 years. He has been a fine general, but the Army is all he has ever known in his whole life. And you don't learn much in the Army about what workers and farmers need, or what it's like to be out of a job. Now he is surrounded by the Republican Old Guard, and they have taken him into camp com- pletely. What a combination. A military man who 730 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] doesn't know anything about civilian prob- lems in the hands of men who speak and work for the banker, the power lobby, the real estate lobby, and all the other special privilege groups. I don't think you can take the chance on turning the country over to an outfit like that. You must vote for your own inter- ests. Vote for yourselves. Vote for your interests and your Government. Vote the Democratic ticket and send Stevenson and Sparkman to Washington, and you will have 4 more years of good government. [5.] Colorado Springs, Colorado (Ad- dress at trainside, 3:58 p.m., see Item 283) [6.] Limon, Colorado (Rear platform, 6:50 p.m.) I was talking to Senator Johnson about how to tell how many people were present, and I told him I always measure them by the acre. It's easier that way. They tell me that you have all the bands in the county here. That is certainly a compliment, and I appreciate it very much. I wish we were going to stay long enough so that each one of them could play a piece. I would like very much to listen to them. I like music. You may have heard a report that I am out here campaigning for the Democratic ticket. Well, that is so. I am doing my best to do what I can to see that the Govern- ment of the United States stays in safe hands. I am going to tell you something about the record of the Democratic Party, and I am going to tell you something about the record of the Republican Party, then you can make up your own minds when you know about that record. And when Gov- ernor Stevenson has told you about what he hopes to do as President of the United States, you can't help but vote the Democratic ticket. Now this city is the center of an agricul- tural area. You people have taken your dryland area that has little rainfall, and you have made it into one of the richest grain and cattle-raising sections in the great State of Colorado. Bank deposits are the largest in the history of this area. Better times have brought better herds and lots of registered cattle. You have some wonder- ful 4-H programs. Your children are proud of what they are doing. And I expect they steal the show when they take their livestock to your fairs. All in all, I expect you find this pretty good country to live in, and you are proud of it — and you have every right in the world to be proud of it. There has been a lot of progress here in the last 20 years, and you are the people who brought it about. But I don't think you could have made this progress unless you had had the Government in Washington that understood your problems and helped you to meet them. And if you don't keep that kind of government, you are likely to lose all the gains you have made. So you folks here have a real stake in this election. I think it is perfectly plain which party has your best interests at heart. Let me give you a couple of examples. First, there is the question of price supports on the basic agricultural commodities. What can you count on there ? There is no doubt about the Democratic Party. We are for continuing mandatory supports at not less than 90 per- cent of parity. That is what our platform says. That is what our candidate for Presi- dent says, and that is the way the Demo- crats vote in the Congress — and that is what you can count on from the Democratic Party. What can you count on from the Republi- can Party? I don't know, and I don't think you do, either. Their platform says one thing. Their candidate says another. And the Republicans in Congress vote as they please. And they are the ones who call the tune for the Republican Party. We know what they did in the 80th Con- gress. They voted a sliding scale under which supports could go down to 60 percent of parity. And just last spring 53 percent 731 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents of the Republicans in the House of Repre- sentatives voted against continuing supports at 90 percent of parity for the next 2 years. Now I believe the price support program is good for the whole country, not just for the farmers but for everybody. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be for it. But the Republicans either don't under- stand these things, or they don't care what happens to the farmers' welfare. Let me give you another example of the Republican attitude toward the farmer — and that is on the matter of rural electrification. Now I think the REA program has been one of the most successful of all the New Deal undertakings. I am told that many farms in this area have received electricity under this program within the last 2 years. It has brought hap- piness and better living conditions to many. Many farm homes all across this great land of ours have had electricity who otherwise would not have received it if it had not been for REA. I have never understood how many elected representatives of the people could be against it. But the private power lobby was against it and, by coincidence or otherwise, most of the Republicans in the Congress have been against it too. As recently as last year the Republicans in the House voted against expanding rural electric power — they voted 9 to 1 against it. Now my friends, in the face of that rec- ord— and I have only told you a very small part of it — I don't see how you can vote to turn this country over to the Republican Party. You will be voting in your own interests, and in the country's interest if you support the Democratic ticket. Send Ralph Williams to Congress. He knows about the problems you have out here. He will be working for you and not for any special interest. I hope you will elect Bill Metzger for Governor. I have known him a long time, and I am sure he will make a good Governor for this great State. And I want to ask you most especially to vote for your own interests. You are the Government. You, the people, constitute the Government of the United States, and the way you control that Government is by your vote; and when you don't exercise that franchise you are doing yourself an injustice. And when you get bad govern- ment, under those circumstances, you de- serve it. What I want you to do is to go to the polls and vote in your own interest. Vote for the welfare of the country. Vote the Demo- cratic ticket and have Adlai Stevenson in the White House and John Sparkman as President of the Senate, and the country will be safe then for another 4 years — and so will you. [7.] Denver, Colorado (Union Station Plaza, 9:16 p.m.) Thanks very, very much for this wonder- ful turnout, and this fine welcome. I want you to know I am very glad to be back in Denver, even for this short time. A lot of good men have come out of Denver. I know, because I have selected several of them to work with me. There is Oscar Chapman, Secretary of the Interior; Charlie Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, both trained by that great and good man, Senator Costigan. And then there is John Carroll, who has worked for me in the White House — he is another Costigan man — a very fine person. I have had all three of these fellows working for me, and they have been tops. As you may have heard, I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory this fall. You have some fine Democratic candi- dates here in Colorado. You have a good Representative in Congress in Byron Rogers of Denver and Ralph Williams of the 2d District. I hope you will keep them both there. Vote for John Metzger for Governor. I have known him a long time, and I think very highly of him. 732 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] Now we have a great national ticket, one of the greatest the country has ever had — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Adlai Stevenson is one of the best qualified candidates we have ever had. He has been an able Governor of a great State. He is experienced in foreign policy. He is bril- liant and courageous, and he is on the side of the people. The developments of the present cam- paign, which I have discussed at Colorado Springs and other places, have led me to the conviction that we should always keep civil- ians at the head of this great Government. I have come to the conclusion, as the campaign has unfolded — I have gone back and studied the role of generals in our politics, and I think history bears me out that the professional generals should not be President. We have many fine generals, who are great and able men. We owe them a great deal, for our victories in war, and for our preparation against aggression. There are some generals here tonight, and I honor and respect them. They live a life of real public service, but they can render that service best in their respective fields. Military training and military life does not qualify a man to be President. A President has to know politics and civil government. This has to be learned by experience. Only a man who understands politics thoroughly can keep from being imposed upon and pushed around, and used as a tool by politi- cians. A man who spends all his life in the Army can't possibly learn the business of political life. He has too much else to do. Furthermore, the military life is almost the opposite of political life. A good many of you have been in the Armed Forces and know how different Army life is. In the Army, a general gets things done by giving orders, but that is not the way the Govern- ment works. A President cannot and should not order the people of the United States around. Most good military leaders recog- nize that their training does not fit them for the Presidency. Most of them follow tradi- tion and keep out of politics. One of our great generals once put this idea very well, in words which I shall read to you. Here is what he said; and there never was anything truer: "Politics is a profession, a serious, compli- cated and in its true sense, a noble one. "In the American scene I see no dearth of men fitted by training, talent, and integrity for national leadership. On the other hand; nothing in the international or domestic situation especially qualifies for the most im- portant office in the world a man whose adult years have been spent in the country's mili- tary forces. At least, this is true in my case." That statement was made 4 years ago by the man who is now the Republican candi- date for President. It was true then. It is true now. It would be a great mistake to send a professional military man to the White House. Our history proves this. In all our history, we have elected a purely professional military man to the Presidency only on two occasions. We have elected other men who had fine military records, and who had been gen- erals— like Washington and Jackson and Garfield; but they were not Regular Army men. They were civilians first, lawyers or legislators — and soldiers second. We have had only two lifelong Army men in the White House. The first one was Zachary Taylor, who had been in the Army for 40 years. He was a hero of the Mexican War. He was inaugurated in 1849, and died a year and a half later at the age of 65. In his campaign, he made a lot of promises about cleaning up the Government and doing away with political patronage. After he was elected, he doled out more political jobs than all his predecessors, and restored the "spoils system." Instead of cleaning up corruption, he increased it. He was succeeded by Vice President Mil- lard Fillmore, who made a very unpopular President. The second last professional military man elected to the Presidency was General Grant. He had two terms from 1869 to 55-672—6)6 -50 733 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents 1 877. He gave the country the most corrupt administration it ever had in all its history. He was a fine general, and personally honest, but a complete failure as a Presi- dent. The politicians led him around by the nose and got him to give them anything they wanted. In fact, both of these generals were babes in the wood when it came to politics. They were set up by the political leaders of the Whig Party and the Republican Party to bamboozle the people. The politicians used them. It is very interesting to look into the his- tory of our country and study the reasons why generals have run for President. In addition to the two regular generals who were successful, three Regular Army gen- erals have run and been defeated. In almost every case, they were put up by a political party that was hopelessly divided into fac- tions, or on the wrong side of the right issues. Political leaders are never willing to let a general have the nomination if they think their party has a good chance of winning the election. They want the Presidency for themselves. The politicians nominate gen- erals in the hope that military glamor will fool the people, and keep them from think- ing about the issues. There are a lot of examples of this, but I have time to mention only a few. The Whig Party was probably the worst offender in this matter of nominating generals. The Whig Party was the successor of the old Federalist Party, and the ancestor of the Republican Party of today. The Whigs were always disunited and a divided party. They started in the 1820's, and about the only thing they could agree on was that they hated Andrew Jackson, who was, of course, a Democrat. They were the party that put up General William Henry Harrison in 1840. He was a Regular Army general, but he had also served a good part of his life in civil government. However, he was picked for his reputation as a hero of the wars against the Indians. That was one of the wildest campaigns in our history. That was the "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign. The Whigs never talked about a single issue. They didn't even have a platform, and nobody knew where this general stood on any- thing— except that he was against the Demo- crats. They bamboozled the people with the General's glamor, and a lot of ballyhoo, and he was elected. But he died almost as soon as he was inaugurated. It worked so well in 1840 that the Whigs tried it again in 1848 with General Zachary Taylor. It was the same story then. The Whig Party was hopelessly divided into two factions. They couldn't agree on the issues. Again they had no platform. So they nominated a general who had never cast a vote in his life, and whose views, if he had any, were completely unknown. The Whig Party tried the same stunt in 1852, but by this time the people were begin- ning to catch on. In that year, to hide their own divisions, the Whigs eliminated all the candidates who had ever taken a position on any issue, and nominated another Mexican War hero, General Winfield Scott. He was known as "Old Fuss and Feathers." And the Democrats beat the tar out of him. And that, by the way, was the end of the Whig Party. It fell apart after the election, and soon expired. In 1864, the Democratic Party in the North was in a weak position. They wanted to capitalize on the people's weari- ness with the Civil War without appearing unpatriotic. So they picked an Army gen- eral who hated Lincoln — General McClellan. But he was defeated, and that was a very good thing for the country. The Democratic Party in 1864 was a lot like the Republican Party is today. The iso- lationist Republicans now want to make an issue out of Korea and our whole policy of checking Communist aggression, without appearing to be unpatriotic. So they are using a general to front for them. This is the way it goes all through our 734 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 7 [282] history. Whenever you see a Regular gen- eral as a party's candidate, you know the politicians in that party are desperate, that the party is so unpopular or so divided that they think they can't win without military glamor. That is exacdy the situation in the Repub- lican Party today. The Republicans haven't won a national election in 20 years. Their policies are reac- tionary and out of step with the people. They can't possibly win on domestic issues, and they are hopelessly divided over foreign policy — and very bitter. At their convention they were calling each other thieves and rob- bers. They are a desperate and divided minority party, who can't go before the peo- pl# and tell them what they really stand for. So they have used the old trick of desperate politicians, and picked a Regular Army gen- eral to hide their own miserable record, and take the people's minds off the issues. They are not going to get away with it. I am going to keep the people's mind on the issues. Now this is an old trick of the Repub- licans, and that old trick isn't going to work. Don't let them fool you. It is a good thing to study American history. It helps you to understand what is happening, and to avoid getting fooled. So don't fall this year for one of the oldest political tricks in American history. Vote for the civilian head of your Government. Vote for civilians to head your Government. Because the Presidency is intended to be a civilian office. And to keep the military un- der control, they made the President the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Nation. Now I will say for you that this President has kept them pretty well under control. Now, vote for the party that knows what it stands for. Vote for one of the best men who has ever been nominated for the Presi- dency— Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. And vote the whole Democratic ticket, and this country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [8.] Akron, Colorado (Rear platform, 11:35 p.m.) Well, I am highly complimented. You must be interested in the welfare of the country, and interested in the issues of this campaign if you stay up this late at night just to hear me talk. I appreciate it more than I can tell you. As you have heard, I am doing a little cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket in the election this fall. The reason I am campaign- ing is because I want us to continue the kind of government in this country that works for the welfare of the average citizen — the work- ingman, the farmer, and the consumer. That is the kind of government we have had for the last 20 years, and the people in the country are a lot better off because of it. I am not going to quote a lot of figures, although I could do so. But you know from your own situation that conditions have im- proved a great deal in recent years. Wages have been good, and in spite of price in- creases, the purchasing power of the work- ingman's wages has been at consistently high levels. The same thing is true of the farm- ers. You know how much the value of farm- land has increased in this area. We have had many Government pro- grams to bring about better conditions. You know, for example, how much rural electrifi- cation has meant to your own area here. I don't mean to say things are perfect, of course — far from it. I know for instance, how much people here are concerned about falling prices for your beef cattle. I am con- cerned about it, too. Now, the strange thing about it is that while your cattle prices have gone down, the housewife at the other end of the line is still having to pay just as much for beef in the stores. I want you to know where that extra money is going. I have got a good idea, and I think you have, too. But I am going to pin it down. Before I left Washington, I wrote the Federal Trade Commission that I wanted them to find out who gets the consumer's 735 [282] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents dollar. I don't see any reason why the price of beef catde should be at the mercy of the meatpackers, and why you should be blamed for the high price of meat in the cities. The drought in the South and Southwest caused shipment of the stock and feeder catde in large numbers to the Federal markets, and they used that as an excuse to put down the price of the stock and feeder cattle. At the same time they put down the price of beef catde, but beef on the retail counter and beef to the wholesaler did not go down one penny. I am going to find out why. Now, when you people go to the polls on election day, I think you ought to keep in mind the record of the Democratic Party and the record of the Republican Party. The Republicans have fought every step of the way against the laws we have passed for the benefit of the people. Just this year, a majority of the Repub- licans in the House of Representatives voted against continuing price supports on wheat and other basic commodities at 90 percent of parity. If they had had their way, the man- datory support price for wheat would be $1.59 a bushel instead of $2.20 as it is now under the law passed by the Democrats over Republican opposition. In order to have the kind of government that will look after your welfare and the welfare of the country, I think you ought to consider your own situation, consider your own welfare, consider how much it means to you to have a government that looks after the people. If you do that, you can't do anything but vote the Democratic ticket. I have become very well acquainted on this ride through Colorado with Ralph Wil- liams. He looks to me like he would make a good Congressman, and I know he would be on your side. He knows about the prob- lems you have here and he will help you take care of them. I hope you will vote for my good friend Bill Metzger. I have known him a long time, and I am sure he will make you a good Governor. And I am sure that you are going to take everything into consideration, the welfare of yourselves, the welfare of this great Na- tion of ours, the welfare of the world — and vote for Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. They are just as fine a ticket as any party has ever offered to the voters of this Nation. If you do that, as I said awhile ago, you are voting for yourselves, voting for your own interests, and that means that the welfare of this great country of ours will be safe for another 4 years. The only reason I am out on this trip is because I am interested in the welfare of this Nation, in the welfare of the world. I have fought for 7 years to get peace in the world. I hope that with a continuing policy which I have put into effect over the last 7 yeats, we will eventually get that peace. What I have worked for is to prevent a third world war, to prevent a depression which we have always had after every crisis in this country when we have had to take up arms. I could have stayed in Washington be- cause on the 29th of March I said that I did not intend to be a candidate for President again. I could have stayed in Washington and taken it easy from now until after the election is over. But the Democratic Party has given me everything a man could ask for. I have been in elective public office for 30 years, and in that time I have been elected a great many times. I never had an office that I really wanted, and never had one that I let them take away from me when I finally got it. I think you have a right to know just why I am doing this. I am doing it out of gratitude to the Democratic Party for what they have done for me. And I am doing it because I think the welfare of the country is at stake. It is in your hands. I want you to inform yourselves, and use your judgment, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. note: In the course of his remarks on October 7 the President referred to Representative Wayne N. Aspinall, John W. Metzger, Democratic candidate 736 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 7 [283] for Governor, former Representative John Marsalis, Democratic candidate for Representative, Senator Edwin C. Johnson, Ralph Williams, Democratic candidate for Representative, Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary of the Interior, Charles F. Brannan, Secre- tary of Agriculture, John Carroll, former Repre- sentative and former Special Assistant to the Presi- dent, and Representative Byron Rogers, all of Colorado, and Edward Costigan, Senator from Colo- rado, 1931-1937. 283 Address at Colorado Springs. October 7, 1952 I THANK you very much for that wonder- ful welcome, and I appreciate that formal reception by the military band over there. You did a good job of it. This is a beauti- ful place. It has a worldwide reputation as a resort, and I wish I could stop here and take a vacation. But as you may have heard, I am busy. I am out here in one of my capac- ities as leader of my party, campaigning for a Democratic victory in the election this fall. You have some fine Democrats as candi- dates in Colorado. There is John Marsalis who is running for Congress in this district. He made a good Congressman when he was there; and it is my opinion that you ought to send him back. I am very fond of Bill Metzger, who is running for Governor. I have known him a long time. I am sure they will make you good, honest public servants. And I am highly impressed with all the rest of your candidates. But I don't know them so well as I do the two I have just mentioned. This year, the Democratic Party has two of the best candidates for President and Vice President that it has ever had; that is, Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. I want to ask you to vote for Adlai Steven- son for President. He is extraordinarily well qualified for that great and difficult job. He is qualified by experience, as a chief executive of one of our great States, and a man who has held important posts in our na- tional defense and our foreign policy. He is also qualified by character. He is humble and courageous and honest — honest with himself and honest with all others. Those are very precious qualities in the Presidency. In the next 4 years, our Presi- dent may have to face some of the most seri- ous decisions in history. We need a man in that job on whose character we can com- pletely rely. Remember that the President has the aw- ful responsibility of deciding whether or not to use the atom bomb. And if that question is presented in the next few years — and I hope it never will be — our President's deci- sion on it may well determine the future of our lives and our civilizations. Let me tell you, too, this is a decision that a President has to make for himself — he can't pass the buck. So we need, more than ever, a Presi- dent who can stand up against political pres- sure when he has to make tough decisions. I also want to tell you, as I have told other groups in the last few days, some of the rea- sons why you should not vote for the Repub- lican candidate for President. Now, I know a lot of people are wonder- ing why I am so strongly opposed to the Republican candidate. They ask, "Didn't you yourself once think he was qualified to be President?" That is true. I did. So I think these people are entided to know the reasons for the cam- paign I am making. Because this is a mat- ter that goes beyond mere partisan politics. I knew the Republican candidate well. He was our commander in Europe when I first became President. I later made him Chief of Staff of the Army, and then sent him to Europe to command the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty countries. He did a good job in both capacities. The Republican can- didate is a great general. But I made a seri- ous mistake when I thought he had the qualities needed for the highest office in the country. I realized, of course, that he was totally 737 [283] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents unfamiliar with politics. I knew he would have trouble in political life, as all military men do, separating the wheat from the chaff, and the political phonies from the men who are really working for the good of the coun- try. But I thought he would always stand up for the things he believed in— for the things his whole career has been dedicated to achieving. This is not what I see when I look at his campaign. The general whose words I read, whose speeches I hear, is not the general I once knew. Something, my friends, has happened to him. And I am deeply disturbed by this change. What I thought were his deep convictions, turn out not to be convictions at all. He has betrayed the more liberal and responsible wing of the Republican Party which sup- ported him for the nomination in the July convention. He has betrayed every princi- ple about our foreign policy and our na- tional defense that I thought he believed in. What I feel has been well expressed by the student newspaper at Columbia University, the university of which he is president. In a recent article, that newspaper said, referring to the "great crusade" that the Re- publican candidate proclaimed at the con- vention in Chicago, and I quote: "The great crusade, passing through the stage of great compromise, must now be called the great disenchantment." The newspaper went on to say that the Republican candidate "has compromised every principle to the dictates of party strategy." And that hits the nail on the head. It has been a sad experience for me. I have gone through a disenchantment, too, in learning that a man I admired can change his convic- tions so quickly and so easily. He has openly compromised his principles on foreign policy. Before the Chicago convention, everybody thought the General had real convictions on foreign policy. That was the big issue, or so it appeared, between the people who sup- ported him at Chicago and the people who supported Senator Taft. When he talked the other day in Michi- gan, the home State of the great Senator Vandenberg — who was a Republican of deep and honest convictions — the General sounded almost like Vandenberg. He spoke glowingly of the bipartisan cooperation that had produced what he called "foreign policy achievements" of the past few years. Among these achievements, he mentioned specifically the program of aid that saved Greece and Turkey from communism, and the Marshall plan of aid to the other free countries of Europe. But the very next day down in Illinois, which is the home territory of the isolationist Chicago Tribune and the isolationist Senator Dirksen — in Illinois, he had no trouble at all talking like an isolationist. He sneered at the same policies of aid to Greece and Tur- key, and of aid to Western Europe, which he had praised as "achievements" the day be- fore. He even attacked the Berlin airlift. And this is not the only time he has at- tacked the policies he worked so long to build up for our defense and the defense of the free world. The Republicans who brought him back from Paris and supported him at Chicago thought he had that same feeling that he had always had. And, I thought, because they believed in our policies of international co- operation among the free peoples and mutual aid against communism, that they knew what they were doing. But almost imme- diately after his nomination they saw him surround himself with men he had attacked as isolationists before Chicago. They now see him condemning our policies of inter- national cooperation which they supported. And many of them are not actively working for him any longer. He has betrayed his principles and his fol- lowers not only on foreign policy but on the defense of the United States. He is saying things now that are quite the opposite of what he appeared to stand for in the past. 738 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 7 [283] He has charged us with cutting our mili- tary budgets too low in the postwar period, and perhaps we did. Yet he himself testi- fied before Congress that my decision, prior to Korea, to hold the 1951 budget down was "a very wise decision." Those are his words. In Illinois, he talked as if he favored end- ing the draft. And he opposed universal military training, which he used to support. He appeared before my Commission on Uni- versal Military Training and convinced every man on that Commission that they ought to be for it, and half of them were against it when he started to talk. When he commanded the North Atlantic Treaty troops in Europe, I had every reason to believe he was convinced of the need for a strong national defense and for foreign aid. Yet, he has talked of fantastic budget cuts of up to $40 billion, and he has singled out national defense and foreign aid as the places where he will make the cuts. When I branded as preposterous his statement that taxes could be cut like that, he changed his position again. Instead of a budget cut of $40 billion or $20 billion in a couple of years, he now promises a budget cut of $20 billion 4 years from now. It seems that he will give you any figure that anybody puts in his mouth, just so long as it sounds like it will bring in votes. He has tried to win votes by playing upon the casualties and sacrifices in Korea. He talks about the blunders that led up to Korea. Yet, as Army Chief of Staff, he joined in the decision to pull our troops out of Korea in the first place. He gave me that advice himself, with his own mouth. He has stated that our decision to help the South Koreans was inescapable. He has said that the best check for sus- taining world peace was to take a firm stand in South Korea. In June of this year, he stated that he did not believe there was any clear-cut answer to the situation in Korea. Today, he im- plies that if he is elected he can quickly solve it. In Illinois, a few days ago, he came out with the idea that we ought to train South Koreans to take a greater part in the struggle. He talked as if the Government had never thought of this, or done anything about it. But as a general he knows that we have trained large numbers of Koreans; that the Korean battle casualties outnumber our own; and that we are training new South Korean armies as fast as the limitation of Korean officers permits. He knows that, far from being a novel idea, or a bright solution, the training and equipping of South Korean forces has long been a major part of our efforts there. He has tried to win votes by asserting that the standard of living in this country has not risen since 1950 because of the taxes we pay. But he himself was a strong supporter of the defense program. And he knows, as everyone else knows, that this program means higher taxes, and holding down the output of civilian goods, if we are not to go insolvent or to have runaway inflation. By common consent, including the con- sent of both parties in the Congress, we are giving up some of our "butter" for "guns" for a short period to meet the national emer- gency. In every public statement of the General's that I know of, before he became a candidate, he supported that program. And yet, he tries now to make political capi- tal out of the taxes that are a part of it — with the deceitful implication that it would have been possible to build $130 billion worth of defense goods without taxes, and without restraint on the production of such things as automobiles and household appliances. Finally, the Republican candidate has be- trayed his principles, by publicly endorsing every Republican candidate in the country, regardless of whether that man is the blackest of reactionaries, a diehard isolationist, or even a moral scoundrel. Now don't let anybody tell you that every presidential candidate has to do that — that it's just a part of politics. Franklin Roose- velt did not endorse every Democrat, and neither did Harry Truman. Governor 739 [283] Oct. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents Dewey in 1948 did not endorse Republicans who had disgraced the Republican label. But the Republican candidate this year did, with the same betrayal of principle he has shown throughout his campaign. And now, my friends, I come to the thing that disturbs me most deeply of all. If there is any one man to whom the Republi- can candidate owes a great debt of loyalty and gratitude, that man is Gen. George Cadett Marshall. It was General Marshall who promoted him to a position of respon- sibility in the War Department General Staff. It was General Marshall who made him our commander in the European Thea- ter. It was General Marshall, according to the candidate's own book, who made the decision to give him command of the in- vasion of Europe — a command that Marshall could himself have had, if he wanted to take it. General Marshall is the finest example of a patriotic American. He was the organizer of our Army, the architect of victory in World War II, a self-sacrificing, tireless pub- lic official. He needs no praise from me. He is the standard by which we judge the patriotism and loyalty of other men. This great man has been the subject of an infamous attack by two Republican isolation- ist Senators. Acting from purely partisan motives, these two moral pigmies have called this great American a "living lie," a "front for traitors" and the center of an infamous conspiracy. Nothing more contemptible has ever occurred in the long history of human spite and envy. It is unspeakable, and the authors of these slanders are unworthy of the company of decent men and women. Now what has the Republican candidate done about this outrage? Has he con- demned these two slanderers? Has he de- nounced their lies about his great friend and benefactor? I'll tell you what he has done. He has endorsed them both for reelection to the Senate. One he has embraced publicly. The other he has humbly thanked for rid- ing on his campaign train. Never a word of criticism — or even distaste. And why? Because he thinks these two unprincipled men will bring him votes in November. Now what do you think of a man who deserts his best friend when he is unjusdy attacked? What do any of us say about a fellow who joins hands with those who have tried to stab an honored chief, a friend and a benefactor, in the back? It is no different in politics. The same standards of morality and decency apply there as elsewhere in life. But the candidate has gone even further. With respect to one of these Senators, he has said that he has the same objectives, but he differs as to methods. Now methods are important. Whether the objective is to stop communism or to be elected President, methods are the most im- portant thing of all. We do not, we never will, subscribe to the doctrine that the end justifies the means. The Communists and the Fascists say that the end justifies the means. They are out to destroy freedom. They use dictatorship and terrorism and concentration camps to attain their ends. But the great men who founded this country believed the means were just as important as the ends, and that is why we have the Bill of Rights and the rest of our constitutional guarantees. They believed, as I believe, that the right ends can be achieved by the right means. The Republican candidate showed in Wisconsin what he has shown throughout this campaign — that in his mind, the end of getting elected justifies the means. To him it appears to justify betrayal of principle and of friends. That kind of moral blindness brands the Republican candidate as unfit to be Presi- dent of the United States. Finding out what manner of man he is has been to me, my friends, a most sad experience. It has been to me, as it was to the students of his university, "the great disenchantment." I hope you will understand why, although 740 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 8 [284] I once thought the General would make a good President, I am now convinced that I was absolutely wrong. And I hope you will think also about these very important reasons when you vote on November the fourth. Thank you. note: The President spoke at 3:58 p.m. at the train- side in Colorado Springs, Colo. During his remarks he referred to former Representative John H. Mar- salis, Democratic candidate for Representative, and John William Metzger, Democratic candidate for Governor, both of Colorado, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan, 1 928-1 951, and General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, 1939-1945. 284 Rear Platform Remarks in Iowa and Missouri. October 8, 1952 [1.] Pacific Junction, Iowa (Rear plat- form, 8:15 a.m.) Well, I am happy to be back here in Pacific Junction once again. You know, I was here on my 66th birthday, back in May 1950. And I received a fine birthday cake. I understand you have running as the Demo- cratic candidate for Congress this year the man who presented me with that birthday cake — here he is right here: Thomas J. Keleher. He will represent you well, and I hope you will send him to Congress. And, I am very much interested in your fight for the governorship here in the great State of Iowa. You have a wonderful man running for that job in Mr. Loveless, and I am sure that you will take everything into consideration and put a Governor in the Governor's chair that you can trust. This year your choice for President may well determine whether you and your chil- dren and grandchildren will enjoy peace in the world. I feel very deeply that the best way to preserve world peace and continue prosperity here at home is to elect Adlai Stevenson as President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Now the Republican campaigners have been running around saying that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have brought us a lot of problems. Along that line, somebody sent me a magazine here that discusses one of these problems. And it is most interest- ing. It is a slick Republican magazine called the Farm Journal, and I am sure some of you read it. This is the issue of Septem- ber 20, 1952. Right at the front of this issue there was an editorial — it was a Re- publican editorial — and it follows the line of the Republican campaign. It said things are just terrible in the country, that the country has gone to the dogs, all because of the present administration. "A change is needed," it says, "to rescue the Nation . . . from an administration . . . helplessly lost" . . . "groggy" . . . full of "intrenched ineptitude" . . . and so forth — just the usual thing you hear from a Republican orator. This is very interesting, but a little later on, in the same issue of that magazine, you get a good illustration of what this "helpless, groggy, inept" administration of mine has done for this country. On page 46 there is an article, and its title reads: "What To Do With Surplus Money." And it starts off by saying "For farmers, as for many others, the question of what to do with surplus cash is often a problem." Now that certainly sounds like we have got the country in a terrible fix. We have created a new problem for the farmer: what to do with his surplus money. Then this magazine goes on to say, "Every farmer has plenty of uses for cash. He may buy addi- tional land, if this seems necessary for more efficient operation, or for an investment. Debts can be reduced or paid off. Life in- surance must be maintained, and a reason- able working cash balance kept on hand. 741 [284] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents His home should be well equipped and com- fortable. But after these essentials have been taken care of, the working farmer often has cash remaining that should be earning something." Yes, sir! — it sure is a tough life for the farmer after 20 years of helpless Democratic ineptitude. If I remember correcdy, I was up here in Iowa when there were so many mortgages being foreclosed you couldn't get in the courthouse. And the farmers got into the frame of mind to take things into their own hands — and some of them did. Now I am going to tell you something, at Shenandoah, Iowa — which will show you that the condition now is — instead of the signboards in the courthouse corridors being lined with foreclosures that are going to take place this day or this week, there are no fore- closures. And if one did come up there would be so many buyers for the farm they would jump all over one another to get it. And if you want to continue that situation of prosperity for the farmer, prosperity for the man who works and uses his hands, pros- perity for business, big and little — where profits never were so great — you have the problem of voting in your own interest on election day, because you control the Govern- ment when you exercise your franchise. And if you do the right thing by yourselves, by your State, and by your country, you will go to the polls in November and vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, and the whole ticket — and we will have another 4 years of good government and prosperity for the farmers, the laboring man, and the businessman. Thank you very much. [2.] Hamburg, Iowa (Rear platform, 9:10 a.m.) Well, I am happy to be in Hamburg this morning. Back in 1948 I went up and down the State of Iowa, telling the people the truth about the terrible record of that 80th Con- gress. In fact, the Republicans are still twisting and squirming as they try to answer that speech I made in Dexter on that plowing contest day. I just overlooked one important thing in 1948. I didn't come here to Fremont County. I really wished I had, because they tell me that I lost the county by only 60 votes. And I am sure the story in Fremont County is going to be different in 1952. But you are going to have to get out and work just as hard for the Democratic Party as the Demo- cratic Party has worked for you. That is the way to get majorities. I know, because I have had a little experience in majorities. Now you have got a good man running for Congress here in this district, and he gave me a prescription, which I think is an excellent one for everybody. It says, "For . . . John Q. Public" — now this is on a regular drugstore prescription blank. Address . . . 7th Iowa Congres- sional District. New Congressman . . . Thomas J. Keleher. Dose . . . One Vote. Directions . . . Register before October 22, 1952. Vote on Tuesday, November 4, 1952. Doctor John Doe, the Voter." Now that is up to you. That is a pretty good thing, and I am very sure that you will elect a Governor that you can trust in Mr. Loveless. He looks to me like he is going to make you a good Governor of Iowa; and I think he is going to be elected. Now, the most important office in. the world is the Presidency of the United States, and nobody knows that better than I do. We need a man who has integrity, respect for truth, and the wisdom and experience to carry us through these critical times. The Democratic Party is offering you that kind of man, and I hope you will vote for him. The man is Adlai Stevenson of Illi- nois. For Vice President the Democratic Party has a real fighter for the common peo- ple— Senator John Sparkman. You couldn't vote for a better man. I am going out to the fair at Shenandoah this morning, and I am going to read them 742 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 8 [284] a letter which recently came to the White House. That letter is so good, I thought maybe the folks here in Hamburg would like to hear it. I have known this fellow for 40 years. It says, "Dear Truman." He didn't say, "Dear Mr. President." He said, "Dear Tru- man." Because he knows me. "I am wondering when you might be on your way with some whisdestop talks to the voters of the western part of the country." This is dated September 4th. "When you do, I have some suggestions to shoot at the Republicans. They talk about deep freeze and mink coats, but they never mention Tea Pot Dome, 30-cent wheat, 10-cent corn, 10- cent oats, 3-cent hogs, 3-cent cattle, 5-cent cotton, and the bank failures. "Here is an instance where a man I knew well, shipped an old cow to the St. Louis market worth now from $150 to $200, but when she got to the market under Hoover, she had to send an SOS to her owner to send her 70 cents, as she lacked that much of paying her way. Well, the farmer didn't have the 70 cents" — that's the best part of it — ". . . the farmer didn't have the 70 cents, neither did any of his neighbors — so he rushed to the bank — he tried to get a loan of that much, but the bank failed before he got there. ... So that poor old cow left the world owing 70 cents, and to this day it has never been paid. "I was selling courthouse supplies and legal blanks at that period, and every bill- board in the courthouse was plastered with farm mortgage sales. I had a tremendous business in that line, but the printing presses had a hard time filling such orders. Today you never see a farm sale under a mortgage. If so, there are a dozen buyers with the money to buy it. "Now, do the farmers want a change back to those times? "What about social security? Do those who are getting social security remember the speech Mr. Eisenhower made while president of Columbia University in which he stated the following" — and I state him verbatim — " If all that Americans want is social secu- rity, why don't they go to prison where they will have a roof over their heads and food to eat and a bed to sleep in?' Now that is a fact, as printed in the Globe Democrat of St. Louis, a vicious partisan sheet." Now I have been asking these people if they would rather go to jail than have social security. I don't believe they would. "Never before are the farmers getting more for their products. Almost everybody has money on deposit in the bank and safely deposited. "If I remember correctly, Mr. Eisenhower announced that he was doing nothing to ob- tain his nomination, but he did return to the States, shed his uniform and made one of the most vicious campaigns for the nomina- tion, calling the Taft supporters in Louisiana and Texas and Mississippi robbers and thieves. If they were robbers and thieves then why aren't they now? If not then, did not Eisenhower conduct a dirty campaign? I don't think we ought to vote for a general for President." Now that's an old farmer down here in the center of Missouri, and as I say, I have known him for 40 years. Now, after hearing that letter, I don't think you can do anything else but vote the Democratic ticket. You will never get into the shape that fellow and the country did under Hoover. Remember this, the people are the Govern- ment. You get the kind of government you vote for. And I hope that in your own best interests you will go to the polls on Novem- ber the 4th, and vote for yourselves. Vote for your best interests. Vote for the welfare of this country; and if you do that, you can't do anything but vote the Demo- cratic ticket. [3.] Shenandoah, Iowa (Address at Shen- andoah County Fairgrounds, 12:40 p.m., see Item 285) 743 [284] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents [4.] St. Joseph, Missouri (Rear platform, 4 p.m.) Well, I am always glad to come here to St. Joseph, and I certainly appreciate this welcome. Like old times. Makes me feel like I am running for something out in Missouri. I want to pay a special tribute to the Pony Express Band over there, although it was pretty hard to know what they were trying to do while you were cheering me. I am very anxious to have you send a Democratic delegation to Washington. I would like to see you elect this young man, Robert O. Richardson, to the Congress. And of course, you are going to send Stuart Symington to the Senate. For Governor, you know Phil Donnelly — he doesn't need any comments from me be- cause he made you a good Governor once, and he will again. Now, this year, the Democratic Party has two of the best candidates who have ever run for President and Vice President in Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. I un- derstand that the Governor will be here tomorrow, and that you will have a chance to take a look at him and listen to him. And you will like him — just as I do. They are men of peace, who have worked with the organization which is the world's best hope for peace, the United Nations. They are trained in the arts of peace. Stevenson and Sparkman also understand that the prosperity of this Nation rests on the welfare of all groups — farmers, laborers, and white-collar workers, and not just on the special interests. The Republicans are trying to make you forget the terrible shape the country was in when they were last in power. I have here a photostat of a page from the Kansas City Star — December 22, 1932; and the headline, as those up front can see, reads: Hogs Rally to Three Dollar Level. 1932! — it was on December 22d. Hogs had rallied to a $3 level. Yes, they were coming back. They had been down. They were going up 30 cents a hundred when this was put out. Imagine that! — hogs rally to $3. Going from lights, 130-160 pounds — you peo- ple in St. Joseph all know what they mean by that, and so do I — $2.7o-$2.90. Light weights, $2.75~$3. Heavy weights, 290 pounds up — $2.70-12.85. Now those were great times, if you re- member. That was the Republican notion of a real, honest-to-goodness price rally. Going up to 30 cents a hundred, to $3. Wasn't that something? I'll say it was. Well, if you want to get that back again, vote the Republican ticket. That was their idea of a proper Christmas present for the Corn Belt farmers back there in 1932. No wonder some farmers of those days found it more profitable to burn their corn for fuel than feed it to the hogs. I just can't imagine hogs rallying to $3. I was somewhat in- terested in it myself, because I had some hogs at that time. We have come a long way since 1932, over the bitter opposition of the Republicans who have fought every measure to improve the conditions of the farmer. Farm incomes are up, and farm ownership is rising. Farm prices are firmly supported, and electricity has helped to take the drudgery out of life on the farm. You know, the reason I am emphasizing the farm so much in this neighborhood is because St. Joseph and Kansas City and Omaha depend absolutely on the prosperity of agriculture for their own prosperity. It is kind of hard to make these economic royal- ists in charge of these newspapers believe that. Prosperity, my friends, is not confined to the farms. I have a clipping here from the St. Joseph-News Press of September 28th, with this headline. It says, "Business Is Looking Up All Over the Country." "Re- ports of good business broke out all over this week. The retailer is talking a record Christmas, and industrial operations were close to their best 1952 figures. Some hit new high spots in places that hadn't had them before." The article starts out with 744 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 8 [284] those things I have been reading to you, and it goes on to state, "Salesmen's order books were well filled, employment was high, some industries were looking for more workers." Now, my friends, all the scolding and screaming the Republicans have been doing in this campaign will never live down the fact that your pocketbooks are doing fine. You know, that just gripes the Republicans to death. They hate to see the country prosperous under the Democrats — and they have been that way for 20 years. Now then, what I am trying to do is to convince the people of this country that they have had the best situation that has ever faced the country, for the simple reason that there has been a fair distribution of the income of this country. The laboringman, the farmer, the litde business and the big business have all had their fair share of the profits and the good things of life. Now that is not Republican doctrine at all. I am trying to prove to the people that this country is not going to the dogs. It is on the way up, and it is going to continue on the way up if you have the right sort of policymakers back in Washington. That is the reason I am out on this campaign. I have been in elective public office for 30 years, and I have had to fight for every office I ever had, and I never had one I wanted but when I got it I didn't let them take it away from me. Now I want to show the people of this country that I am grateful for what has been done for me. I have had everything politi- cally that a man can ask for, and I am not like some of these birds, I am not going to run out on the party that made me. I am going to be a Democrat to the day I die, and I am going to fight for the Democratic Party as long as I live. Now, if you want to continue the country in its present greatly prosperous condition, vote for your own interests in November. You know, you the people are the Govern- ment. You have the say as to who shall be in power in all the offices which run the Government, from the city, the county, the State, and the Nation. And when you don't exercise your franchise you have got nobody to blame but yourselves when you get bad government. And you get just what you deserve. Now what I am urging you to do is to get up early on November the 4th and go down to the polls and get that ticket. Look at the top of the Democratic ticket, where that round circle is, put an X in it and put it in the box. And then go back home and know that you have voted to put Stevenson and Sparkman in, and that you are going to elect a Democratic Governor in Missouri and a Democratic Congress that will keep this country on an even keel for another 4 years. And you can go home and sleep all right that night, unless you want to stay up and listen to the returns. [5.] Sedalia, Missouri (Rear platform, 8:40 p.m.) Well, this is a real treat for me. This is coming back home, sure enough. You know, back in 1940 I opened the campaign for my reelection to the United States Senate right here in Sedalia. And the late Secretary of Labor was the man who made the speech for me, Senator Schwellenbach, of the great State of Washington, who afterwards became a Federal judge in that great State — Presi- dent Roosevelt appointed him — and then I made him Secretary of Labor. And if you will remember, that 1940 campaign was a rough one, but we won it. It was like the 1948 campaign, and we won that. I always have had a soft spot in my heart for Sedalia. It's just like my hometown, because I feel like that campaign of 1940, which originated here, finally got me into more trouble than any man has ever been in before or since. You people all know me pretty well, be- cause you have seen me through some hard campaigns. But the one this year is the most important and most serious of my life. The whole future of this great country of ours 745 [284] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents may hang upon a Democratic victory this fall. And that is why I am making this trip, working as hard as I can to elect the Demo- cratic ticket. I am very grateful to the Democratic Party for what it has done for me. I am not like a lot of fellows, after he has had everything he can possibly get out of his party, I stay with it — and I am going to stay with it all the rest of my life. I know all your candidates out here, and it is a good team. I hope you will put them in on November the 4th. I have known Stuart Symington for years and years, and I think very highly of him. He will make a good Senator. And I know Morgan Moulder, who has been one of the best Con- gressmen that ever has come to Washington. You won't make any mistake by keeping him there because he is in the position now where he can do some real good. You don't need anybody to tell you about Phil Donnelly. He served one successful term as Governor, and he will make a good Governor again for the great State of Missouri. This is a hard election — the toughest I can remember. And one of the reasons is that the Republicans are trying every trick in the book to win. They are trying to lie their way to victory. They are trying to buy their way to victory. They are pouring out money. I am told their candidate for Presi- dent has an advance party of 60 people — and two of them do nothing but handle the confetti concession. It would be nice to have all that money to spread around, but I am just as glad as I can be that the Democratic Party hasn't got it. I have never been in a campaign yet where money won it. It's the man himself that wins campaigns, and the right man will always win, money or no money. The Republicans have to pay too high a price, and it isn't worth it. The Republicans get all this money from the big interests and big lobbies — the banks, the power lobby, the real estate lobby, the oil lobby, and all the rest. Naturally, since those people foot the bill, they expect service in return. And they certainly do get it from the Republican Party. That party is owned body and soul by the lobby boys — and their record proves it. One of the lobbies I am thinking about you might not even know about. That is the medical lobby — one of the least noticed of them all — but one that has put an awful lot of money into past Republican cam- paigns. Now this lobby does not include the overwhelming majority of devoted doc- tors in our country. Most of our doctors are the finest people in the world. The lobby doesn't really represent them. The medical lobby is nothing more or less than a small reactionary faction within the national lead- ership of the American Medical Association, plus a very slick public relations firm. And what is the purpose of this lobby? It is very simple. The purpose is to keep all medical work in this country under the com- plete control of some rich doctors who want to decide for themselves how and when — and for what fee — our people shall pay for medical care. There is a clique that has prevented the creation of new doctors in this country, and there never was a time in the history of the country when we were as short as we are now of proper medical care. Now, this litde outfit — this lobby — has been helping to subsidize the Republican Party for several years. And, as usual, they get good service for their money. Let me give you some examples — recent examples. In 1950, 58 percent of the Republican Con- gressmen voted against expanding our pro- gram to build hospitals with Federal aid. In 1 95 1 the Republican Senators voted 9 to 1 to block Federal help to train more doctors — and there never was a time when we needed more doctors as badly as we do now. That same year they voted 4 to 1 against badly needed help for State and local public health units. And when I asked for an insurance program along the lines of social security, to 746 Harry S. Truman, J952 Oct. 8 [284] help you to save to pay these doctor bills, the Republicans made a political football out of the whole thing. Right now it happens that the medical lobby is just a bit embarrassed. You see, last year I set up a nonpartisan commission to go into the whole problem of the health needs in this Nation, including the cost of medical care. Some very fine and con- scientious doctors are serving on that com- mission— and some good laymen, too. I told the commission to study the problem and come up with the best solutions. I said that I was not committed to any particular plan, but I did want to make some progress. That sort of pulled the rug out from under the medical lobby. They tried to attack this commission in the meeting of the American Medical Association last summer, but their fellow doctors wouldn't go along. So this little group of reactionaries announced the other day that their work was ended. Then you know what they did? They changed the sign on their office door, that's all they did, and now they are called the Na- tional Professional Committee for Eisen- hower and Nixon. It's the same crowd, with the same Re- publican affiliation, and the same purpose in life — with just a new name. And they are hard at work trying to put their Republican friends over on us next November. I happen to have some evidence of that right here. I have a clipping from the Nashville Tennessean, dated September 26th, 1952. It shows the photostat of a letter dated 3 days before, on the stationery of a local Nashville doctor. Apparently this letter was sent to a lot of other doctors there, too. The letter reads as follows — now this is the letter: "Dear Doctor. I have been asked as a member of Senator Nixon's Parade Com- mittee to ask a few of my friends to drive their cars in the Nixon parade on Saturday, September 27. We want to count on you to be there, or if you can't participate to have someone come in your place. In order to make the best impression on the general public, we are asking that you use a small car if possible." Use a small car if possible! Well, my friends, the Republicans have most of the big cars, I guess — and most of the big car vote — and they can keep it. We Democrats will be content to get the small car vote, from the genuine small car people — just as I have been saying that I am perfecdy happy to have the Republican Party have the generals and the colonels in this campaign, but I will take the corporals and the privates, and win the election. Now the Democratic Party has always been the party of the plain everyday man who drives a small car, because that is all he has — and that is the way our party will con- tinue under Adlai Stevenson. So, I urge you — just vote for your own interests now. You are the Government. It is you that controls the country, and when you don't exercise your right to vote and you get bad government, it is nobody's fault but yours, and you get just exactly what you deserve. But if you go to the polls on November the 4th and do as I advise you: vote the Democratic ticket straight, here in the great State of Missouri; you will have good gov- ernment at home and in Washington, and the world will be safe. [6.] Jefferson City, Missouri (Rear plat- form, 10:10 p.m.) I don't need to tell you how glad I am to be here. You have seen me in a lot of campaigns before, but I think this one is the most important one in which I ever took part. If I may be entirely frank with you, I am, if possible, more anxious that the Demo- cratic administration should be continued this year than I was in 1948 — and that's say- ing a lot. I honestly believe that the whole future of this country, and the peace of the world, may depend upon a Democratic victory — 747 [284] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents and that is why I am here. I think we have on the Democratic ticket in this State as fine a selection of men for the positions as we have ever had in the State's history. And, you know, I have been in State politics a long, long time — longer than I like to think about. The candidate for Senator, Stuart Syming- ton, I have known for many, many years. I think very highly of him. He will make a good Senator. He is familiar with the situa- tion in Washington, and he will do a good job for Missouri. And I can speak from experience on that, because I was a Senator from Missouri one time myself. Your Congressman, Morgan Moulder, is one of the best in the Congress. You can't get a better man for that position. I know you are going to send him back. And, of course, all of you know Phil Donnelly. He served capably and well as Governor of this State, and I know he will serve you well again. I want you to go out and vote for the na- tional ticket, too — Stevenson for President and Sparkman for Vice President. Adlai Stevenson is a skilled man and an experi- enced one. He knows a great deal about the art of civil government. He has convic- tions, and he is absolutely honest with him- self. He is discussing the issues in this cam- paign, and talking sense to the American people. Listen to what he has to say, and you will know, as I do, that here is the man we want and need to be our President for the next 4 years. There will be troubles in those years — and he is the one man to deal with them. One of the most fundamental issues in this campaign is the great difference in outlook and approach between our two political parties. The Democratic Party has always been the party with a heart for the people — concerned about their wants and their needs. With us, the people come first. With the Republicans, property and profits come first — ahead of the people. The Re- publican Party has a calculating machine where its heart ought to be. And the cal- culator only works for the big lobbies and the special interest organizations who pay the party's bills and call the tune. Because our parties differ in this way, you will find a large majority of the Democrats in favor of programs that bring progress for the people. And usually a great majority of the Republicans will be lined up on the other side — against the people. For nearly 2 weeks now, I have been go- ing across the country telling the people how our two great parties differ on the issues that affect our daily lives. Here in Jefferson City I want to talk to you about one of the most important issues of all; that is, education in this country, and the proper part our Gov- ernment should play in it. I think most of you realize — those of you with children surely do — that the schools of our Nation are in trouble. It has been get- ting worse for years. Soon it will become a catastrophe, if we do not act to meet it fast. We have had prosperity in this country for many years. The proportion of children at- tending school is higher than it ever was be- fore in our history. High school enroll- ments are up 60 percent in 20 years. And with the birthrate up 50 percent since 1940, the total of school age children is climbing very, very fast. This calls for a great expansion in the school buildings. But the building costs and maintenance costs have been increasing greatly in recent years — far beyond the budg- ets most school districts can afford. Not only have building costs gone up, but living costs for teachers have risen also — while their salaries have lagged way behind. Teaching is so poorly paid in most places today, that literally thousands of potential teachers are being lost to other jobs. The schoolteacher, my friends, is the most important asset, next to the mother of a child, that he has. The teachers of children in the lower grades — the primary grades — makes a greater impression on the children of the country than any other person with whom he comes in contact. And I speak 748 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 8 [284] from experience. I can still remember my first and second and fourth and fifth grade teacher — who made a tremendous impres- sion on me — got me started in the right direction. And I will have to admit that I may not have ended up as well as I thought I should. But then they were not to blame for that. But the importance of keeping the teachers in a financial position and an economic posi- tion where they can afford to continue to teach is one of the most important things in this country. And you will find that most teachers are people who have their hearts set on the rising generation, and they are not out for money — but they certainly ought not to be allowed to starve to death. These are the factors that have combined to bring on the crisis in our schools: more children to teach, not enough schools to put them in, and too few teachers to instruct them. Now, everybody recognizes that the edu- cation of our children is a job for the States to control — I don't know anybody who wants Federal control of education. But the States and the towns and the cities are not equally equipped to meet the present crisis in their schools. It takes money to do that, a lot of money. Some States can scrape it together, others cannot. None of them has the reserves to do an ideal job. The poorest States can hardly get by at all. The States have done a lot — taken alto- gether— and they deserve great credit for it. The volume of school building has never been higher than it is now. The same is true of teachers' salaries, on the average. But it still isn't enough, and it certainly isn't spread widely enough around the country. Some places have first-class schools, but too many others have substandard schools. And a lot of them are too poor to do much about it. That is why I have tried, for 7 years, to start a program of Federal financial aid to all the States, in proportion to their needs. The Democratic platform of 1948 endorsed that program. Our party platform for 1952 states that the Federal Government must play its proper part in helping to carry the financial load of building schools and teach- ing our children. Now, how have the Republican calculat- ing machines responded to all this? They have mosdy been against it, year after year. Even Senator Taft, "Mr. Republican" himself, was unable to force through the Republican 80th Congress the Federal aid to education program he had borrowed from his Democratic colleagues. In 1949 the present Republican candidate, then head of Columbia University, lent his prestige to the Republican Congressmen op- posing Federal aid — and his action helped to defeat the bill. That was the famous oc- casion when Senator Morse, the liberal Re- publican from Oregon, called the candidate's views "sophomoric." Senator Morse also said, and I quote: "A background of leader- ship in military affairs is not, to my mind, the background for making pronouncements upon the public school system. . . ." To what Senator Morse said, I can only add "amen." As the crisis in our schools has deepened, the stand of the Republicans has actually grown worse, not better. In 1948 the Re- publican platform had the grace to favor "equality of educational opportunity." And that is a quotation: "equality of educational opportunity." That, at least, implied some form of Federal aid, since equality can be achieved no other way. But now, in 1952 with the school crisis made more serious by inaction, the Repub- lican platform, following the lead of the Republican candidate, states flatly: "The re- sponsibility for sustaining this system of popular education has always rested upon the local communities and the States. We subscribe fully to this principle." In other words no Federal aid of any kind to help finance good schools. That is an attitude which would condemn many of this country's children to poor edu- cation, or none at all — merely because of 749 [284] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents where their families live. The Republican policy is violently unfair. It is wrong. It is worse than wrong; it is just plain stupid! Thomas Jefferson knew better, a long time ago. He said: "If a nation expects to be free and ignorant — it expects what never was and never will be." That is just as right as it can be. The Republicans are always talking about free- dom— but they take their stand on the side of ignorance, every time. And ignorance is freedom's worst enemy, and always will be. And that's the reason I'm a Democrat. There is no leadership, no forward vision in a party or a candidate that takes a stand like this. You young people are vitally interested in that. You must, in making your decision of how you are going to work for the wel- fare and continuation of this Republic of ours, ally yourself with the party that believes in progress, a party that looks forward, a party that has ideas for progress, and not a party that is always looking back to 1896 and wishing for William McKinley to be President again. These are not people for you to trust. They are not people who un- derstand your interests — or this country's interest. And I say to you, don't trust them and don't vote for them. Vote for the party that has always worked for you and always will. Vote for men who have been great friends of education and the true friends of the people. Now you are the fundamental basis of the Republic of the United States. The power of government rests in the people by the Constitution — the greatest document of gov- ernment that ever was written. And it is your duty to exercise your prerogative as a voter to see that we have the right kind of government. When you don't go to the polls and vote, when you don't exercise that pre- rogative, and you get bad government, you have got nobody in the world to blame but yourselves — and you deserve what you get. Now I say to you, on the 4th day of No- vember, exercise your right. Go to the polls and vote for progress, vote for the welfare of this country for another 4 years, by putting Stevenson and Sparkman in the White House. note: In the course of his remarks on October 8, the President referred to Thomas J. Keleher, Demo- cratic candidate for Representative, and Herschel C. Loveless, Democratic candidate for Governor, both of Iowa. He also referred to, among others, Robert O. Richardson, Democratic candidate for Repre- sentative, W. Stuart Symington, Democratic can- didate for Senator, former Governor Phil M. Don- nelly, Democratic candidate for Governor, and Rep- resentative Morgan M. Moulder, all of Missouri, Lewis Schwellenbach, Senator from Washington I935_I94° and Secretary of Labor from June 1, 1945, until his death on June 10, 1948, and Senator Richard M. Nixon of California, Republican candi- date for Vice President. 285 Address in Shenandoah, Iowa. October 8, 1952 IT'S A real personal pleasure for me to come to Shenandoah. I like this corner of Iowa, not only because it's one of the real garden spots of the world — but also because it's about as close as you can come to Jackson County, Mo., and still be in Iowa. So I have the feeling today that comes when we associate with close neighbors. I have the feeling also that a lot of you must have voted for me in 1948, because I carried Iowa as well as Missouri. This year, you have the opportunity to elect as President the Governor of a great farm State — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Governor Stevenson is a man of great ability and long experience in civil government. He worked in the Triple-A back in the 1930's — and he knows firsthand what the farmers went through in those days. As Governor of Illinois, he has been just as 750 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 8 [285] close to the farmers during the last 4 years. You also have the opportunity to elect as Vice President a man of complete integrity and a real progressive. John Sparkman was the son of a tenant farmer in Alabama; and if there's anything he doesn't understand about agriculture, I can't imagine what it is. And to help them administer the affairs of this great country, I sincerely hope you will elect a Democratic Congress. I have had a chance to talk with your candidate for Congress from this district, Tom Keleher, who I am told is known as "Getting Things Done Keleher." My impression is that his nickname is just about right, and he will get things done for you back in Washington. And I heartily recommend to you your Democratic candidate for Governor, Her- schel Loveless. And I hope you will elect him. Now, I want to talk to you today about the farm programs of the Federal Government. Some time ago, I received a letter from a man in Missouri that brings home to us the importance of these programs. I want to read you a part of it. "Dear Truman," he says. None of that "Dear Mr. President" stuff. He just talks to me like he is still my neighbor. "I am wondering," he says, "when you might be on your way with some whistle- stop talks to the voters of the western part of the country. I want to make a sugges- tion to you. When you do, I have some suggestions to shoot at the Republicans. They talk about deep freezes and mink coats but never mention Teapot Dome, 30-cent wheat, 10-cent corn, 10-cent oats, 3-cent hogs, 3-cent cattle, 5-cent cotton, and the bank failures. "Here is an instance where a man I knew well shipped an old cow to the St. Louis market, worth now from $150 to $200. But when she got to the market under Hoover she had to send an S O S to her owner to send her 70 cents, as she lacked that much of pay- ing her way to St. Louis. Well, the farmer did not have the 70 cents, nor did any of his neighbors. He rushed to the bank to try and get a loan of that much, but the bank failed before he got there. That cow was a great individualist but her ending was ignominious. She left the world owing 70 cents, and to this date it has never been paid." His letter goes on to say: "I was selling court supplies and legal blanks at that period, and every billboard in the courthouse was plastered with farm mortgage sales. I had a tremendous busi- ness in that line, but the printing presses had a hard time filling such orders. Today you never see a farm for sale under a mort- gage. If so, there are a dozen buyers with the money to buy it. "Now, do the farmers want a change back to those times?" I wonder if they do? There you have the story of the cow who met an ignominious end, and still owes 70 cents on her freight. I learned one thing from that letter I hadn't realized. I never thought the Hoover farm depression was good for anybody. But now I find it was. It was good for the man who sold the paper that the farm sales were printed on! Now, a lot of the Republican newspapers have been saying that the Democrats have got to stop running against Herbert Hoover. I can see why they'd like to drop the whole subject. I would, too, if I were in their shoes. There may be some of you folks so young that you don't remember the Hoover farm depression. But a lot of us older people do, and I don't think it's something the coun- try can afford to forget. The same thing could happen again, if the same Republican Party gets back in con- trol of the National Government. The Hoover farm depression hit us for a very simple reason. We did not have in Washington in the 1920's a party that was interested in all of the people. The Repub- lican Party rushed to the rescue of the banks and the railroads. They bailed out the big interests, but they didn't lift a finger to help the farmer and the ordinary workingman. 751 [285] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents The people who were left behind came mighty close to revolting here in the Middle West. Farmers sometimes took things into their own hands in those days, when the courthouse walls were plastered with mort- gage foreclosures. But, fortunately for the country, they had a peaceful means of chang- ing the order of things, and in 1932 they brought in a Democratic administration. And the change that has taken place since then is almost unbelievable. The increase in farm prosperity has been so great, and has lasted so long, that a lot of farmers have forgotten all about the Hoover depression and have started voting Republican again. How they can do that, I just can't understand. In this election campaign, both of the candidates for President have made speeches on their farm policies. I cannot say any- thing to improve on Governor Stevenson's speeches. They have been clear and forth- right statements, and they make plain he stands on the Democratic record and the Democratic platform. We can count on him to continue and improve the Democratic programs which have already done so much for American agriculture. The Republican candidate's farm speeches are unbelievable. They are a conglomera- tion of generalities, platitudes, half-truths, and just plain misrepresentation. He makes the baldest attempt to steal the Democratic record that I have ever seen. He says the farm programs of the last 20 years were brought into being on a "non- partisan basis." He says he understands they "have been overwhelmingly supported" by the Republican Party. This just goes to show that in the field of agriculture, as in so many other fields, the General doesn't know much about what's been going on in the United States during the 40 years he's been in the Army. Let's look at the record and see about that "overwhelming support" from the Re- publican Party. The first Triple-A program was opposed by two-thirds of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. A large majority of Republicans voted against the Soil Con- servation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936. The Triple-A Act of 1938, which is still our basic price support legislation, was opposed by the Republicans in Congress 5 to 1. The 80th Congress did a lot of things, which most of you understood when you voted 4 years ago. That Republican Con- gress cut the soil conservation program, and the Republicans in the House of Representa- tives voted 12 to 1 to kill the agricultural conservation program entirely. Probably the worst thing they did was to pass a bill which banned the Commodity Credit Corporation from providing grain storage. I said at the time, and I say now, that this action was a great favor to the grain trade and a terrible blow to the farmer. It would have killed the price support pro- gram deader than a doornail if the Demo- cratic 8 1 st Congress had not changed the law in a hurry. But there was a lot of harm done before the law could be changed. Many of you had to sell grain at less than support prices because you couldn't find enough storage space in either the grain trade or from the Commodity Credit Corporation. The Republicans are mad now because I put the finger right on the trouble in 1948 and told the American people who was fight- ing them. Some are even telling big lies, now, about what happened in 1948. But I know they can't fool the farmers — you had personal knowledge on the ground of what was happening. The Republicans didn't even learn any- thing when the voters repudiated that 80th Congress. Their obstruction has continued. When it was necessary to increase the bor- rowing authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation to make sure of meeting price support commitments, Republicans voted against it 74 to 59 in the House and 32 to o in the Senate. Not a single Republican Senator voted for that proposition. 752 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 8 [285] The bills that continue to threaten to tax farmer-cooperatives out of existence are Republican bills. There's one by Noah Mason in the House, and one by John Williams in the Senate. Williams, by the way, is in the grain storage business, and he is the one that has done the most howl- ing about the increased storage space. The Republican platform says kind words about farmer-cooperatives in principle, but offers no protection in practice. The Republican candidate for the Presi- dency has said a few kind words about rural telephones. But I wonder if he knew that a majority of Republicans in the House voted against the new rural telephone program. The Republicans claim to be in love with rural electrification, yet in the Republican 80th Congress the only way we could get large enough appropriations for REA was to put them through while the Republicans were absent. There were five record votes on REA appropriations in the House of Representatives during that awful 8oth Con- gress— and every time the issue came up, the Democrats voted almost solidly in favor of REA, while the Republicans opposed it almost unanimously. They are trying their best, down in this corner of Iowa, to claim that the Republicans are responsible for REA. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent calls the record of the last 20 years a nonpartisan record! I know it's hard to believe it, but that's what he did. Now, you can expect the same kind of "overwhelming" Republican support for our farm programs in the future that we have had in the past. Look at the situation on price supports, for example. You can't analyze the Republican position in just a few words, because there are at least four positions. I am going to tell you about those four positions. They are good. First, there's the position of the 80th Con- gress that gave you the sliding scale of sup- port levels ranging down to as low as 60 percent of parity. Why, even in 1932 farm prices as low as they were still averaged about 60 percent of parity. Second, there's the position taken in the 1952 platform. The key sentence in the Republican platform reads as follows: "We favor a farm program aimed at full parity prices for all farm products in the market- place." You've been left to the tender mercies of the marketplace before. And that's where you went broke about 20 years ago! The third position is that taken by the Republican candidate at Kasson, Minnesota. He said you didn't have to pay any attention to the Republican Party's platform. Now, get that! — he said you didn't have to pay any attention to the platform. He said that price support at 90 percent of parity is fair and he'll support it until 1954. Well, he couldn't say much else, because the law is already on the books. But it was put there by the Democrats. A majority of the Republicans in the House of Representa- tives actually voted against it. Yet, he has the gall to say that the amendment was passed by votes of both parties in the Con- gress. Then there is the fourth position, which we ought to call the General's "after break- fast" position. After his famous breakfast with Senator Taft, the Senator said he be- lieved that the General "will be for a flexible farm support program after the present 2- year agreement for 90 percent parity is over." The Senator is here today. He rode in the parade. He set his appearance up from 8:30 to 3:30 so he would have a crowd. I want you to give him a hearing. And then read the record, and you will find out what the facts are. I have told you the Repub- licans have four positions — one a matter of history, one a vague hope, one which is cam- paign oratory, and one "after breakfast." When you get through, you come out right where you went in with the Repub- lican 80th Congress. And now the Republican candidate either in ignorance or in deceit, has taken up the old, discredited batde theory of "enslaving" 753 [285] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents the farmer. He seems to think you are wearing chains. Such talk is downright silly. It insults the intelligence of farm men and women. You've lived with these price support pro- grams for a long time — and have helped to run them. How many of you feel regi- mented? How many of you feel that the Federal Government is in charge of your farms ? The Republicans know, of course, that our farm programs are all completely vol- untary, except when the producers of a commodity vote controls on themselves, un- der conditions carefully spelled out in the law. Farmers fought for the right to use this economic protection, and I don't hear anybody except self-seeking politicians rail- ing against it. Democratic administrations have provided farmers a most unique and valuable system for governing farm programs on their farms. I am speaking of the soil conservation dis- tricts and the system of farmer-elected com- mitteemen who administer price supports and other programs. These two systems alone would be great monuments to 20 years of progress under Democratic administra- tions. They make it possible for farmers to elect their neighbors to administer the farm programs on a nonpartisan basis. Yet, the Republican platform does not mention continuing the farmer committee system and it threatens reorganization of the districts. In fact, the 80th Congress almost killed the committee system — that's what the Republicans really think about letting farmers have a voice in their own programs. The Democratic Party has "regimented" farmers so badly that the vast majority now own their farms. That is terrible regimen- tation. In 20 years we have stopped and completely reversed the alarming trend to- ward tenancy of the preceding 50 years. From 1880 to 1930, the percentage of owner- operated farms dropped from 74 to 58 percent. But, today, once again, about three-fourths of our farms are operated by their owners. That doesn't sound to me like either regi- mentation or creeping socialism! Perhaps the Republican leaders can find regimentation in our farm productivity. With the help of the biggest agricultural research program ever undertaken, Ameri- can farmers have stepped up farm output by 50 percent in 20 years. And there are not as many farmers on farms as there were 20 years ago. We have new strength in our farmlands. We have improved crops and livestock. Our farms are well equipped with modern machines and tools. Nine out of ten have electricity. No longer do we have 15-cent corn and 3-cent hogs. But I think we remember them. Now, let me talk for a minute about the Brannan plan. Charlie Brannan has done one of the greatest jobs that any Secretary of Agriculture has ever done. He's admin- istered these price support programs fairly and honestly, and in such a way as to mini- mize the cost to the Government. Last fis- cal year the price support operations gave the Federal Treasury a net income of over $100 million. But Charlie Brannan has been con- cerned— and rightly so — about a big gap in our farm program, the problem of perish- ables. Much more than half of farm income comes from perishables. These are com- modities like hogs and eggs and milk that people need more of and want more of. Also, the production of these commodities makes for sound, diversified agriculture. So when Congress asked Charlie Bran- nan for his suggestions, he made the best recommendations to take care of perishables that anyone had thought of up to that time — and better than anyone has thought of since. He presented them to the Congress as a basis for serious discussion, but his political opponents decided to make a campaign issue of it instead. They decided to call it a plan 754 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 8 [285] and to call it socialism and thought if they could say it often enough people would believe it. So in Kasson, the Republican candidate fell in with this scheme. He indulged in some cheap name-calling. He called the Brannan plan "moral bankruptcy" and some other names. Did he say what was wrong with the Brannan plan? No, he did not. Not a word of specific criticism. He just promised that the Republicans would find some way to accomplish the same objectives that Secretary Brannan would accomplish — only without any bankruptcy in their morals. Well, we can't criticize the morals of the Republican plan, because they haven't any plan to criticize. Now they've had 30 years to think up a plan. Their candidate now says they're going to start thinking. I hope they do. It's just about time they started thinking. There are a lot of other policies of the National Government that are related very closely to farm policies. You ought to look at these, too, before you cast your vote. You would have to ask both parties what their policies are on labor. Do they believe in full employment at good wages for the people who live in the cities? Those are the people who buy the things the farmers grow, and farmers cannot prosper unless the peo- ple who live in the cities can keep on buying. You would have to ask both parties what their policies are on maintaining a true competitive system — through assisting small business and using the powers of Govern- ment to reduce the domination of the national economy by the giant corporations. The great reform measures of the last cen- tury, and many of those of Woodrow Wil- son, arose out of this Midwestern soil, where farmers were being made the pawns of the railroads and the Eastern trusts. You would have to ask both parties what their policies are on international coopera- tion and foreign trade. Republican tariffs deepened the depression of the 1920's by cutting off the foreign markets upon which American agriculture depends. Read the Republican platform. Read the Democratic platform, and ask yourself which is the party of the people, and which is the party of the special interests. The big cor- porations and the special interests of all kinds have had the Republican Party as their servant — not only in the 80th Congress, not only in the days of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover — but all the way back to President McKinley and beyond. The Democratic party has fought the battle of the little man — of the farmer, the laborer, the white-collar worker, the small businessman — and it has fought it constantly year in and year out. The Republicans know this — so now they ask for your vote as a gesture of sympathy. "It's time for a change," they say, because if you don't vote Republican this time, the poor old Republican Party is going to die and you won't have a two-party system any more. The Democratic Party was once out of office for longer than the Republican Party has been out. And it didn't die. It still had a great mission. And the Republican Party won't die either if it has any reason for being saved. It had better start proving itself worthy of the trust instead of asking for votes on the basis of sympathy. Our Government cannot be run like a children's game of spin the plate or musical chairs. The Democratic Party is the party of the young people. It is the party that is always looking forward. It is the party that has a future. It is the party that believes in the future of this great Nation of ours. And the young people ought to make a study of exactly what's gone on in the history of this great Nation of ours. And when they do that, they can't help but get in with the party that is looking to progress. As I have said time and again, I wish I was 18 instead of 68. I would like to see the next half century. I would like to see what de- velops in this great Nation of ours. What has developed in the last half won't be a patching to what will come up in the next 755 [285] Oct. 8 Public Papers of the Presidents half. I would like to be here to help with it, and to see it done. And the way to get it done is to stay with the party that believes in progress and the future. Now, the Democratic Party has fulfilled your trust through the most difficult and challenging period in all history. The Democratic Party offers you a program — and men who know how to make the pro- gram succeed — for prosperity, for strength, and for peace. The men on the ticket are just that sort. The Democratic Party offers you the op- portunity to vote for your own ideals, to vote for progress, to vote for the future, to vote in your own interests. You are the Government. You, the people, exercise the power and run the Republic of the United States. And you exercise that power when you go to the polls. And when you don't go to the polls, and you get bad government, you have nobody to blame for it but your- selves. And you get just exactly what you deserve. Now, I want you to do this. Think these things over. Get the facts. What I want you to do is to study the facts, and then I urge you again to get out there on election day, and vote for your own future. note: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. at the Shenandoah County Fair and Harvest Jubilee. Dur- ing his remarks he referred to Thomas J. Keleher, Democratic candidate for Representative, and Herschel C. Loveless, Democratic candidate for Gov- ernor, both of Iowa. The President also referred to Representative Noah M. Mason of Illinois, Sena- tor John J. Williams of Delaware, and Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture. 286 Rear Platform Remarks in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. October 9, 1952 [ 1. ] Indianapolis, Indiana (Rear platform, 7:05 a.m.) It is grand to see so many of you out here this early in the morning. As you may have heard, I have been getting up early all my life, and it's a good thing I'm used to it, because the President has to work 17 hours a day and he has to start early to get in that many hours. Judging from the spirit you have out here this morning, I know you are going to elect some good Democrats this fall — for the House of Representatives, John C. Carvey; for Senator, Governor Henry Schricker; and for Governor, John A. Watkins. Now I am out here campaigning because I believe it is essential for the welfare and progress of the country to help elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. You know the fine, liberal record Adlai Stevenson has made as Governor of your neighboring State of Illinois. He has shown that government can be used to improve the lot of the average man. That is what the Democratic Party believes in. Governor Stevenson has made it clear in this campaign that he will move forward with the great programs we have carried out since Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. There is a big difference, my friends, between the Democratic Party and the Re- publican Party. Look at the record. The Republican Party has always been the party of the wealthy corporations, and what Alex- ander Hamilton used to call the "rich and the well-born." We Democrats don't ask a man whether he is in the social register, or which country club he belongs to. The Democratic Party is the party of the peo- ple, and we have shown by the record that we don't let the people down. As President of the United States, I have worked for more than 7 years for programs to build better homes, better schools and hospitals, to extend social security, to see that the farmers and the workers and all the plain people of this country get a fair deal. The Old Guard Republicans have fought me every step of the way, and they are the 756 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [286] people who have now taken over the cam- paign of the Republican candidate for Presi- dent. I am sorry to say that the Republican candidate for President doesn't know any- thing about the history of them. So it ought to be plain to you that the way to con- tinue a government that is interested in your welfare is to send Adlai Stevenson to the White House. In this campaign, the Republicans have been trying to cover up their terrible record in Congress. They are afraid to talk about the real issues, because their record is too bad. They spend their time throwing mud at the President, trying to divert your atten- tion from the campaign. I don't mind the mud. I have thrown back too much of it and I know how to handle it. They have been sending up a smoke- screen, trying to fool the people. They make a lot of wild and reckless charges about the present administration and about the Presi- dent of the United States. And then they say, "Just turn the Gov- ernment over to us and we will B.x every- thing." And they sure would. These Republicans now say, "We are not going to tell you how we will do it. You just leave that up to us, and we will take care of it." I don't think you and the rest of the American people are going to fall for that line of hokum. If you do, you will get just exactly what you deserve. Because the record of the Republican Party is so awful, it should be a warning to you. I have been saying that the Republican Party has opposed every progressive measure for the good of the people in this country for the last 20 years. They tell me the Republicans are squealing like stuck hogs and saying I have been unfair. Well, I don't think I have been unfair. I know them too well. You see, I have been with the administrations in Washington for the last 18 years. They can't tell you that I don't know the facts about it. A lot of times they fight and stall and block the progressive measures; and then, after they are licked, vote for them on final passage in order to get credit for having voted for a good measure. But maybe they were in favor of some- thing a time or two. I don't remember them if they were. But I want to be gen- erous with them. Let's give them credit for the benefit of the doubt, and let's say they have been wrong but 90 percent of the time. Well, I'll even make it 80 percent. I still don't want you to put them in charge of the Government. I still don't think you want a party that has been against social security, against full employment, against minimum wages, against the Wagner Act, against pub- lic housing, against public power — well, I could go on with this list for an hour and never repeat myself. And I am sure you get the idea. The Governor mentions rural electrification — I'll make you a special speech on that a little later. My friends, don't fall for the campaign- year hooey the Republicans are giving you. I ask you as citizens of this great State of Indiana to study the record. The record speaks for itself, and it is only the record that I have been pulling on these people — and they can't stand it. The record speaks for the welfare of the country, and it also says that the Democratic Party has been for the welfare of the country all the time — and the Republicans haven't. Now, that's the issue. You won't find the Republicans discussing issues. They are talking about people, and they are using character assassination; and they are using nothing in the world but misrepresentation of the facts — because they can't stand to have the facts given to the people. What I want you to do is just study the record. You are the Government. If you will study the record and then use your best interests in the interests of this great Repub- lic of ours, and the welfare of the world as a whole, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will vote the straight Demo- cratic ticket, and then the country will be safe for another 4 years. 55-672^—66 -51 757 [286] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents [2.] Anderson, Indiana (Rear platform, 8:10 a.m.) I appreciate most highly this turnout at this hour of the day. The last time I was through Anderson we didn't stop, and I have regretted it ever since. Now I don't think there's any secret about why I am here. I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, if you don't know it. I am doing that because I think this is about the most important election we have ever had. I am also doing it for the reason that I want to see the policies inaugurated by Franklin Roosevelt — and carried out by me — continued. And they will not be continued if we turn the Government over to the pull- backs. You have some fine Democrats running for office here in Indiana, and I hope you will vote for them. You certainly could im- prove upon your present situation in Indiana. You have a man running for Senator who has been your Governor, and who has made an able and distinguished record— Governor Schricker. And I know he will do the same thing in the Senate, if you send him there. Then for Congress you have Phil Der- mond; for Governor, John Watkins, who just introduced me. I know you are going to put that ticket over. As for the national ticket, we have as able a man in Adlai Stevenson as I have ever met. I don't have to tell you much about him. He is a neighbor of yours, and I expect you know his great record over in Illinois as well as I do. He is a neighbor of mine, too, because I live on the other side of him, over in Missouri. But I would like to say this. Governor Stevenson is the finest new civilian leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt back in 1932. He will look out for you and for your interests. Roosevelt did — just as I have tried to do. This is a very, very important election to you. It is going to make a lot of difference to you personally, a difference in your chances for peace, a difference in your chances for 758 prosperity. Right now this city is boom- ing. There is work for everybody, and a chance for everybody to get ahead. That is just as true in the countryside as it is in this town. In fact, it is true over the whole United States. Now we want to keep things that way as best we can, and we can do it. We can keep our country prospering and growing every year. But it won't happen by accident. It will only happen if you have a government that is bound and determined to help you make it happen. That is what you will get from the Demo- cratic Party. We have proved that we can do it. Remember, 1949-— slack times threat- ened then, but we never let it get serious. We had things booming again by the spring of 1950. That was before Korea — before the defense program ever started. Now, what will you get from the pull- backs and the Republicans? Well, look at their record and you'll find out. In 192 1, when bad times threatened, they didn't do a thing, and we had 7 million unemployed in the country. In 1929, when the same thing happened, the Republicans set a new record. That time they got unemployment up around 14 million by 1932. And if you give the country over to them again, they will im- prove on that. Don't think they have changed any. The record shows they are still the same as al- ways. Just 4 years ago a big majority of Republican Congressmen opposed a full em- ployment bill — they were against full em- ployment. They thought it was a crackpot idea to set a goal of 60 million jobs. Now we have 62 million jobs, not counting the military at all. But they say it is terrible. They are going to change all that. Don't you let them do it. That is what I think they will do, if you turn the Govern- ment over to them. You will get a change, all right; but I don't think it will be the kind of a change you will want. Remember that their candidate for Presi- dent is a soldier by profession. And remem- ber that a party which has proved it can't be Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [286] trusted with the people's welfare cannot be trusted with the country's safety. Think of your own interests when you go to the polls. You yourselves are the Gov- ernment. Think of what helps you. And if you do that, you will go to the polls on the 4th of November, and you will vote for the welfare of this great Nation. You will vote for the efforts that we are making for peace in the world. You will vote the ticket that will do the country and you the most good. And when you do that, you will vote a straight Democratic ticket, and the Govern- ment of the United States will be in safe hands for another 4 years. Don't forget that. [3.] Muncie, Indiana (Rear platform, 8:56 a.m.) Thank you very much for this nice recep- tion. I am glad to be here. I guess it's no secret why I'm here today. I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. I hope you will support the fine Democratic ticket here in Indiana — for Senator, Governor Schricker, who has made you a good Governor; for Congress, Fred Culp, whom you just now met; and for Gov- ernor, John A. Watkins, you just gave him a salute. I am very proud of the national ticket — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. You know a lot about Governor Stevenson. He is your neighbor in Illinois, where he has done a good job. He is a very capable man, and an honest one. He really understands the problems of the everyday man in the coun- try, and he knows how to handle the job of running a civilian government. He will make a great President. Adlai Stevenson is a good representative of the Democratic Party, and so is his running mate, John Sparkman. Both men have long and pro- gressive records of service to the people. And service to the people — friendship for the little man — that is the main force and purpose behind the Democratic Party. Ours is the party of the people. We put the people first above all else. That is why so many people vote for us. The Republicans are entirely different from the Democrats. Republicans just can't be trusted to work for the plain everyday people of the country. They have no heart. That is the big issue in this campaign. The Republicans have only the heart for the big banks and industries that foot their bills, and tell them what to do. Those are the fellows the Republicans serve — not the people. They put property ahead of the people every time. If you want proof on that, just read their awful record in the Congress of the United States. The Republicans like to call themselves the GOP. Now let me tell you what that really stands for. It stands for the "Gen- eral's Own Party." Now let me read you about the generals — there's General Motors, there's General Electric, General Mills, Gen- eral Foods, and a lot of other generals who don't use this title. Maybe that is why most of the military generals turn Republi- can, like General MacArthur and General Wedemeyer and General Martin — and that other general who is the head of their ticket. At least, he is supposed to be the head of the Republican ticket, although you can't tell now who is running the Republican Party. Now, my friends, the way he has been acting has been a terrible disappointment to me. I once thought he might be a good President, but that was a mistake. In this campaign he has betrayed almost everything I thought he stood for. Don't you make the same mistake, or you will be stuck with it for 4 years. In the Democratic Party we don't have so many generals. Ours is the party of the privates. I have always said I am perfectly willing to let the Republican Party have all the generals, I will take the corporals and the privates, and win the election. We also have one general, and he is the 759 [286] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents one that the Republicans won't touch with a io-foot pole — and that is the general wel- fare of all the people. Now, my friends, if all the privates will just go out and vote on election day, the country will be all right. Don't turn our country over to the generals of big indus- try, or over to the military generals, either. We don't want big business in government. We don't want a military government. We want a civilian government. That is the reason the Constitution of the United States made the President of the United States the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. And the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President of the United States, ought to be a civilian, so he can tell the generals and the admirals to stand around — and I have done it. You will get that same kind of program if you put Adlai Stevenson in the White House, and I know that is what you are going to do on November the 4th. Thank you very much. [4.] Bellefontaine, Ohio (Rear platform, n:5oa.m.,e.s.t.) Thank you very, very much. I am glad to be here. I guess there's no secret about why I am on this train trip. I am out cam- paigning for the Democratic victory this fall. This is a very important election, my friends, and I hope you will vote the Demo- cratic ticket, for your own safety and for the welfare of the country. You have got some fine Democratic can- didates here in Ohio — for Senator, Mike Di- Salle; and for Governor, Frank Lausche. I am very well acquainted with both and like them both very much. As for our presidential candidate, he is the best man for the job in this whole country. Adlai Stevenson will make an excellent President. He is a man you can trust to look after your interests. Now, I don't think it would be right for me to come to the State of Ohio again with- out saying something nice about Bob Taft. You know, he and I were both at the big fair in Shenandoah, Iowa, yesterday. I don't think he liked my speech out there very much. In fact, I don't think the Repub- licans like any of my speeches very much — especially when I go into the Republican record. I guess I disagree with Senator Taft on almost everything. But I have a good deal of respect for him just the same. He is a man who sticks by the things he believes in, and he fights for them, too. He is against the Democratic farm policy, and he is against our labor policy and our welfare policy — and I think he is rather proud of being in that corner. He is against our foreign policy, and makes no bones about it. He has stamped his views on the rec- ord of the Republicans in Congress. That's why he is called "Mr. Republican." He has made that record, and he is is not ashamed of it. And I wouldn't be, either, if I was in his shoes — but I'm sure glad I'm not. I only wish that the man who beat Bob Taft out for the Republican nomination last July would stick by his principles just the way Bob does. The General went to the convention in Chicago shouting that Taft and his sup- porters were a bunch of thieves and rustlers. The General was going to clean up that mess in the Republican Party. He made a big fight for "honesty" — and he won the nomination. That's the last we have heard of honesty in the Republican Party from the General. Now the General has gone back on the men who fought Taft for him. And Taft has taken over the campaign. It has got to the point that the only way you can be sure where the General stands is to read Taft's statements saying what the candidate has agreed with him to do. That is how I found out the General had swallowed Bob Taft's foreign policy — which he denounced before Chicago. That is how I found out he had swallowed Bob Taft's line on domes- 760 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 9 [286] tic policy — farm, labor, and all the rest. I don't think that is very nice of the Republicans, to run on Bob Taft's program — and leave him off the ticket. Why didn't they nominate him in the first place? Why bother with all this big brass window dressing? You know, I just can't get it. But there is one thing I do get. The General has gone right down the line and repudiated almost everything he was sup- posed to stand for and believe in, when he was calling Taft a rustler back there in July. For a while I thought he did that because he was a professional military man and just didn't know any better. Now I have begun to fear that he is doing it simply because he thinks it is a good way to get votes. There was a time when I thought he would make a good President. That was my mistake, and I have found it out the hard way. But, don't you make the same mistake, or you will be stuck with that mistake for 4 more years. If you want to keep this country safe you have got to have a President you can trust. Think of your own interests. You are the Government. The people in this country are the power in the Government, and they exercise that power when they go to the polls. And when a man neglects his duty as a citizen and does not go and vote his sentiments and he gets bad government, he has nobody in the world to blame but himself, and gets just what he votes for or doesn't vote for. Go to the polls, now. Do your duty. Study the record. Look at the principles on each side of the fence. Make up your own mind which party has done the most for the people and will continue to do the most for the people. And if you do that, you can't help but vote the straight Democratic ticket on November the 4th, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. [5.] Marion, Ohio (Rear platform, 12:50 p.m., e.s.t.) Thank you very much. I am certainly very glad to be in this town today. You know, I have had a unique experience on this trip. Coming out here, I stopped in Canton, Ohio, which was the home of William McKinley. Today I am stopping here in Marion, which was the home of Warren G. Harding. You know, I have always thought — and I still think — that Warren G. Harding was more sinned against than sinning. There is a rumor around here that I am out here on a political trip. Well, that's right. I am out to help elect the Democratic ticket in November. You have had a look at your local State candidates, and they all look very good to me. I am very happy about the general ticket in Ohio. I know Mike DiSalle very well. He has done a wonderful job down in Wash- ington, and I hope you will elect him to the Senate. And Henry Drake here will make a wonderful Congressman. I don't need to say anything about Frank Lausche. You know him well enough that you are going to elect him Governor again. But I am here particularly in the interests of the national ticket. I am very proud of our candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson. He has a fine record of public service — in the civilian side of Federal and State Govern- ment. He is beholden to no one for his nomination, and he does not have to have a lot of other people explaining how he stands on the issues. And John Sparkman, the vice-presidential candidate, has a fine progressive record in the Senate. With these men, our country will be in safe hands. For nearly 2 weeks now, I have been going around the country explaining to the people some of the things that everybody ought to understand before election day. I have been pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between our two parties. The Democratic Party has always had a heart for 761 [286] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents the people. With us the people come first. With the Republican Party, property comes first. The Republican Party is controlled by the big banks, big industry, and big lobbies who pay the party's bills and run the party to suit themselves. For 20 years our Government has been run by the Democratic Party, and that has been good for all the plain people every- where. But if you let the Republicans take over, the little man had better look out. They tell me that when the Republican candidate for President was traveling around the Midwest, he had a sign on the back of his train which said, "Look ahead, neighbor." I don't know what that slogan was in- tended to mean, but I know what that sign ought to say. What that sign should say is, "Look out, neighbor." Because if the Re- publicans should win this election, you surely would have something to worry about. Do you have a job now? Do you want to keep it? Or get a better one? Well, look out, neighbor. The Republicans have had about 14 million unemployed the last time they held office. Are you retired now? Drawing social security benefits, perhaps? Well, you had better look out, neighbor. The Republicans have opposed social security whenever they dared. Just last spring two-thirds of the Republican Congressmen tried to block your cost of living increase in insurance benefits. Do the farmers around here want a fair price for their crops, and a decent living on the farm? Well, you had better look out, neighbor. The Republicans are pretty critical of our Democratic farm programs. You can't count on them to continue these programs. And they are the best the farmer has ever had. Do you want a people's government in Washington, an independent government that can't be dictated to by any special inter- est? Well, you had better look out, neigh- bor. The Republican candidate has been knuckling under to the special interest groups right along. I want you to take warning. The Re- publican Party has a long record of opposi- tion to the things you want and need. And the Republican candidate has shown in this campaign that he is not equipped to be the leader of this great Nation. The Democratic Party has given this coun- try good government for 20 years. These have been some of the most difficult years of our history, but our country has come through this period successfully. It is now the greatest and strongest Republic the world has ever seen. I hope you will vote to keep it that way. These interests are your interests. You yourselves are responsible for the Govern- ment of the United States, because the Con- stitution provides that the power of govern- ment rests in the people. And it is your duty to see that that power stays there. In order to exercise that power, it is your duty to be registered to vote on election day. And when you don't do that, you are not doing your duty — and when you get bad government, you have nobody to blame for that but yourselves. Now do this for your own benefit, for the welfare of the Nation and for the welfare of the world. Go to the polls on November the 4th and vote for Stevenson and Sparkman — and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you. [6.] Galion, Ohio (Rear platform, 1:35 p.m., e.s.t.) I am glad to see you here today. I certainly want to thank you for this fine reception. You know, the President of the United States has five full-time jobs, and one of them is being the leader of his party. And that is my capacity here today. I am doing everything I can to help elect the Democratic ticket in November. Here in Ohio you have some very fine candidates on the Democratic ticket, as you 762 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [286] have been able to see just a while ago. And I am particularly interested in the national ticket. I hope you will send Mike DiSalle to the Senate. He is a great fellow. He did a wonderful job in Washington. And Henry Drake will make you a good Congressman. You don't need any infor- mation from me about your Governor, Frank Lausche. He has made a good Gov- ernor, and I am sure you are going to send him back. And I am as proud as I can be of the national ticket — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. I want you to know this coun- try is very fortunate to have Governor Stevenson running for President. He is a fine man. He is the kind of man who will really work for the people. His work in Illinois is the best kind of training a man can have, to perform the duties of the Presi- dent of the United States. Now there is something very serious I want to say to you. This election is going to decide whether we go on making progress in this country, or get stopped dead in our tracks. More than that, this election may decide the fate of the whole world. I say that because I know what can happen. Should the Republicans get control of this Government, I know what they will do, be- cause I have read their record in the Congress right down to the fine print — and that is what you have to go by. The Republican Party has been against progress in this coun- try. It has opposed most of the great liberal measures that have contributed to our prosperity. This election year they adopted a back- ward-looking platform, far more reactionary than the one they had 4 years ago. I want you to read it, and read it very carefully. I am not asking you to do anything but in- form yourselves; and I am bringing these things to your attention so that you will in- form yourselves. But their candidate has been trying to cover all this up by a lot of ballyhoo about a "great crusade." Now, he has been a very good general. And in fact, I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and I appointed him to command the NATO troops in Europe — and I know he is a good general, or I would not have ap- pointed him. But the business of generals is to fight and prepare for war. They don't know any- thing about civilian life. • They don't have the experience with civilian problems, or the political problems of the Government. Yet the Presidency is the highest civil office in the land. It calls for a man who works and thinks and has been trained in civil life. It calls for a civilian to keep the military under civilian control, as the Constitution intended. The Presidency calls for a man of great principle and strong convictions — not for a man who says whatever the special interest lobbies want said. The Republican General is not the man we need. The man we need is Adlai Steven- son of Illinois. I want to call the attention of you young people to something which you ought to be- gin to think about right now. You are go- ing to become citizens after a while, and the fate of the country is going to be in your hands. You want to have a government in this country that is looking forward, not backward. You want to have a government in this country that goes along with progress. And you will be that government in just a few years. And I want you to do something: inform yourselves on what this country has been, what this country must be. We are faced with the greatest age in the history of the world — and it is up to you young people to keep the Government in the position so you can carry on what has been accomplished in the last 20 years by Democratic administra- tions who have looked forward and not back- ward. Now, every Republican campaign since 1936 has been one to turn the clock back. The speeches that are being made today were made in 1936; so are the speeches that were 763 [286] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents made in 1940; so are the speeches that were made in 1944 by the Republicans. And I was in that campaign — a candidate for Vice President. They were made in 1948 — and what I had to do was go out and tell the peo- ple exactly what these people were aiming at. And what happened? 1948 was the biggest surprise they ever had in their lives. And they are going to get another one in 1952. And then the country will be safe. Thank you very much. [7.] Cleveland, Ohio (Address in the Public Square, 3:15 p.m., e.s.t., see Item 287) [8.] Erie, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 5:30 p.m., e.s.t.) I thank you most sincerely for this won- derful greeting. I am glad to be in Pennsyl- vania, even if it isn't for very long. But I promise I will come back to your great State for a real campaign tour before election. I think this is a critically important elec- tion for you. I want the Democrats to win, for the sake of our country and for our own welfare. I certainly hope you will elect the slate of Democrats in Pennsylvania. You have a grand man running for Senator in Judge Bard; and for Congress you have Clinton Bebell — with whom I rode just awhile ago. As for our national ticket, I think it is one of the best any party ever offered to the voters. Adlai Stevenson will be a great President. He has had the right experience. He has talent and ability, and he has made a splendid record as Governor of a great State. He is an honest man — honest with himself, and he is honest with the people. He is a man you can trust, and he represents a party you can trust — as you know by experience. Now, the basic issue in this campaign is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Democratic Party has shown by its record that it works for the people. With us the people come first. The Republicans have shown by their record that they place property and profits ahead of the people. With them, my friends, property and profits always come first. I said awhile ago that the Democratic Party has a heart in which the interests of the people rest — that the Republican Party has a calculating machine where their heart ought to be, and they are always thinking of profits. Now we have had much trouble with the labor attitude of the Republicans. Back in the early days of the New Deal administra- tion, we passed the Wagner Act, to give labor an equal place before the law. Just as soon as the Republicans got to the point where they could, they passed that awful Taft-Hartley Act, that act was intended to put a stop to any further progress by the labor unions. Even Senator Taft now says it goes too far and he wants to change it. I think it's a little late for him to make that statement. But I want to say to you that the Repub- lican Party, as a party, still thinks that act is grand. The Hartley end of that organiza- tion wrote a book on it in 1948, and he said what they were going to do. Well, I read that book in Akron, Ohio, and they didn't get a chance to do it. I am not sure that our five-star general knows enough about the Taft-Hartley Act to understand how it undermines labor unions, but whether he knows it or not, what he is talking about sounds as if he is just like an- other Old Guard politician. He endorsed their platform, and their five-star candidate told the A.F. of L. convention that he liked the Taft-Hartley Act. I don't know what he knows about it. Everything shows that the Republican candidate is another Old Guard Republican. He is not a liberal. He fooled me, and he fooled all the liberal Republicans. He let Senator Taft say for him that they agreed on all domestic issues. That makes it very clear where he stands. Then he started making speeches, which showed he had surrendered to Taft on even 764 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 9 [287] the foreign policy. I thought he had some firm principles about our foreign policy, and that he was opposed to the Taft isolationist policy of too little aid too late. But his speeches show I was wrong. But worst of all, he has publicly embraced and endorsed Jenner and McCarthy. They are the two men who got up on the Senate floor and falsely attacked one of the great men of our age: General George Catlett Marshall — calling his character and loyalty into question. George Marshall is a very great patriot, and he was the friend and benefactor of the Republican candidate. It was on George Marshall's recommendation that the Repub- lican candidate took great commands and was appointed and was made famous by those commands. And I want to tell you that I made him Chief of Staff, and I put him in command of NATO in Europe. I did it because I thought he was the best man available for the place. He did a good job — I am not quarreling about that — but he has fooled me on this program of how to take care of the Government of the United States. I will tell you, I never thought the candi- date would speak to, let alone endorse, those two birds, Jenner and McCarthy. That act made it perfectly clear to me that I had made a mistake in ever thinking that he was qualified to be President. You can't trust a man who switches around that way, both deserting his principles and his former friends. And you know you can't trust the Republican Party to protect your interests. They are not friends of the plain everyday man who works with his hands. The Democrats have been the real friends of the working people, of the farmers, and of the small businessman. The Democratic Party is one you can trust. You know from 20 years of experience that you can trust them. The Democratic candidate for President is a man you can trust. Now, you yourselves are the Government. The Constitution of the United States says the power of government shall rest with the people. And you exercise that power when you vote in your own interests — in the inter- est of the welfare of this great Nation. And the welfare and the peace of the world de- pend on what you do on election day. Now, go to the polls. Vote for yourselves. Vote for the welfare of this great Nation. Vote for the best interests of the whole world. Vote the Democratic ticket straight, and you will be all right. note: In the course of his remarks on October 9, the President referred to John C. Carvey, Philip C. Dermond, and Fred V. Culp, Democratic candidates for Representative, Governor Henry F. Schricker, Democratic candidate for Senator, and John A. Wat- kins, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of Indiana. He also referred to Michael V. DiSalle, Democratic candidate for Senator, Governor Frank J. Lausche, Senator Robert A. Taft, and Henry P. Drake, Democratic candidate for Representative, all of Ohio, Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Clinton J. Bebell, Democratic can- didate for Representative, both of Pennsylvania, Senators William E. Jenner of Indiana and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, 1939-1945- 287 Address in the Public Square in Cleveland. October 9, 1952 THANK YOU very much for that welcome. I certainly do appreciate it. I shall never forget the wonderful recep- tion you gave me in 1948 — and the majority that you gave me that year, too. But I want you to do better this year and give an even bigger majority to Adlai Stevenson. I know you'll do it. As you may have heard, at least there has been rumor about it, I have been going around the country campaigning for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. I am trying 55-672—66 765 [287] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents to wake the people up to the fact that this is a most important election. I have been try- ing to tell them what the real issues are. The basic issue in this campaign is a fundamental difference in philosophy be- tween the two major political parties. The Republican Party believes in running the Government primarily for the benefit of the wealthy — this makes government for the privileged few. The Democratic Party be- lieves in government for the people — for all the people of this United States. That difference in philosophy is apparent in the platforms of the two parties, it is ap- parent in their records, and it is apparent in the difference between our candidates. I might say that there are few places where it is more clearly apparent than in the dif- ference between the Republican candidates for Congress and the Democratic candidates for Congress in your own great State of Ohio. Whenever an issue comes up in the Congress, you can be pretty sure what a man from Ohio is going to do. If he is a Republican, he will vote for the special in- terests. If he is a Democrat, he will vote for the people. So I urge you, for your own sake and for the sake of your country, send us a lot of good Democrats from Ohio this year. Send Mike DiSalle to the United States Senate. He is a man you can count on. Send Bob Crosser and Mike Feighan back to the House of Representatives. Those two men are on the side of the people every time. I expect there are a lot of people here from the districts where Chat Paterson and Michael O'Brien are running for Con- gress. They are good men. Send us good Democrats like that from all over Ohio and we will have a Congress to be proud of. And I am glad to say that you have the same kind of Democrats in your State and city governments — men like Frank Lausche and Tom Burke. I hope you will keep them there as long as they are willing to stay. It is vitally important for us to elect the right man as President of the United States this fall. These next 4 years are likely to be some of the most critical we have ever faced. We must have a President who understands the complex issues of modern government, and who has the skill and integrity to han- dle them wisely and honestly. The Republicans have nominated a Regu- lar Army general. He doesn't know much, if anything, about the real issues, and the Republican snollygosters don't want him to find out about them. They want to keep the real issues out of this campaign, because if they let them in, that would ex- pose the whole Republican record. The Republican Party knows it would lose if it had to run on its record, and that's why they have put up a general. They think the military glamor is going to make the people forget the real issues. But we are not going to let them get away with that. You know, this campaign reminds me a lot of the campaign of 1852. You can read about it in your history books. In that year, the Whig Party — which was the ancestor of the Republican Party — was hopelessly split, and wrong on the issues. So they nominated a regular general to get the peo- ple's minds off the issues. That nominee was General Winfield Scott, the great hero of the Mexican War, who was known as "Old Fuss and Feathers." He campaigned around the country, talking about nothing, and the Democrats defeated him. After that, the Whig Party broke up into little pieces, and passed away from the American political scene. Now I wonder if that same sort of thing might not happen to the Re- publicans this year. One of the real issues in this campaign is what to do about high prices. Now the Re- publican Party has been talking a lot about high prices and the high cost of living. It's like sin, they're against it. So is every- body else. But what do the Republicans pro- pose to do about it ? Well, they don't tell us. The Republican candidate for President has moaned and groaned about high prices 766 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [287] in almost every speech he has made. But you can go all over those speeches, and read them with a magnifying glass, and you still won't know what he proposes to do about it. All he says is — elect me, and your troubles will be over. As a program, that has some badly missing elements. Does the Republican candidate say any- thing about price control — that is, anything that you can understand? Not a word. Is he in favor of stronger controls? Well, he doesn't say. The reason is perfectly clear. His party won't let him say anything positive about price controls, because the special interest lobbies who control that party are against them. Now they are against them — and the Democratic Party is for them. The Demo- cratic Party has been working for price con- trols— to help you balance your budget — and the Republican Party has been kicking and bucking and punching holes in them, and doing everything possible to weaken them. So there's something else you won't find out much about in the Republican candi- date's speeches. That's the Republican rec- ord in Congress on high prices. I don't blame him for not talking about that. If I were in his place, I wouldn't talk about it either — because it's bad. However, I don't happen to be in his place, so I'm going to see if I can't do something about remedying that omission in his speeches. I am going to ask you to go back and look at the Republican record on the whole ques- tion of price controls. Right after World War II we had a very inflationary situation in this country. People had lots of money, and the production of civilian goods had not come back far enough to meet the demand. The only thing that held prices down was price control. The Republican Party, almost to a man, was for taking controls off. And they succeeded in getting that done in 1946. The result was just as I predicted it would be. The cost of living rose 15 percent in 6 months. It was the worst inflationary rise in our history. In 1947 and in 1948 I tried to get controls put back. That was during the Republican "do-nothing" 8oth Congress, and of course they just laughed at the idea of controlling prices. In 1949 prices levelled out a bit. Then came the aggression in Korea, and everybody foolishly rushed down to the stores and be- gan to buy up everything they could put their hands on. That sent prices rushing right up again. By the time we got a price control law and a general freeze of prices and wages, the cost of living had gone up another 8 percent. But with price control in effect prices be- gan to level off, and hold steady. And what did the Republicans do at this point? Did they rejoice, and help us keep a firm control on prices ? Not at all. The special interest lobbies descended on Washington and tried to get increases or exemptions for their products. And the Re- publicans in Congress began to hack and chop away at the control law, in order to legalize profiteering for the few. Let me give you a few examples. Senator Capehart sponsored a terrible amendment that bears his name — but could more proper- ly be called the National Association of Manufacturers amendment. That amend- ment has by now cost the American people just about a billion dollars or more in higher prices. Last year Republican Senators voted 36 to 5 to curtail price rollbacks — and 37 to 3 for an amendment which prevented effective control of black marketing in meat. This year they voted 22 to 14 to end all price and wage controls; and only a Demo- cratic vote of 43 to 1 saved what is left of protection to the consumer. The Republican Senators have voted against rent control, too, and it has taken the votes of the Democrats to preserve such rent control as we have. The Republicans in the House of Repre- sentatives have just as bad a record as the Republican Senators. In June 1950, 80 per- 767 [287] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents cent of the Republicans in the House voted to end rent control and let the landlords make a killing. This year they voted again to end rent controls by 6 to 1. They voted to suspend price control on any item which is not rationed — and that means food and automobiles and everything else that a person has to buy. And that vote was by almost a 4 to 1 majority of the House Republicans. I could recite many more such votes. The Republicans tried, and in some cases suc- ceeded, in putting across measures in favor of almost every rich man's lobby that came to Washington — the big meatpackers, the railroads, the National Association of Manu- facturers, the real estate interests, the chain grocery stores, and all the rest. And now their candidate has the nerve to mourn over high prices, and to promise to fix everything up, if he is elected. With a record like that, you can be sure his party will murder what is left of price controls if it ever gets hold of the Government. There is one way the Republicans could reduce prices, and I think they might be willing to try it. And that is to bring on a depression — not a big depression, you know, like they had in 1932, but just a litde bit of a depression. They would just like to have a little depression, so they could get control of labor and prices. I'm not sure you would be willing to try that, even if the Republican bankers are. And anyway, these little Republican depres- sions somehow have a habit of turning into big ones. To say that the Republicans are the party of low prices is like saying the shark is man's best friend, or that tigers make nice house- hold pets. In spite of all the Republican opposition in Congress, we have been doing what we can to hold prices level. I called to Wash- ington to help me on this, one of the ablest citizens of Ohio, Mike DiSalle. He did a fine job, and if you people of Ohio want good government, you will send him to the Senate, where he will represent the inter- ests of the people. If you elect him, and a firmly Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, you can expect to have some help in your struggle with the high cost of living. But, my friends, don't expect it from the Republicans, because their record shows they are not interested in what you want. Another thing the Republican candidate for President has been moaning about is taxes. Now, I wish taxes were not so high, particularly for the people with moderate incomes. But the only reason they are so high is that we need money for our defense against Communist aggression and war. That is the only reason. We could slash our taxes tomorrow if we weren't in danger. The Republicans talk as if we weren't getting anything for our taxes. But they know what our tax money is going for. The average workingman, and everybody else in this country, has been purchasing, over the last 2 years, with his taxes, some- thing more valuable than anything he could buy in the stores. He has been buying national security. He has been purchasing the armaments with which to defend something infinitely more precious than dollars — and that is his own country and his own future. The Republican Party and the Republican candidate know perfecdy well that this is the reason we have to pay high taxes. And yet, the Republican candidate is going up and down the country promising tax cuts, and budget cuts, and saying the people are on an "economic treadmill." The Republican candidate did not speak up in 1950 against the defense program. He did not say, when he was called upon to go to Europe, that he did not agree with the ob- jectives of rearming this country and its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty. No, he was in favor, then, of our national security. Well, my friends, he cannot have it both ways. Either he wants to build up our defenses rapidly — and that means taxes — or he wants 768 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [287] to weaken our security in order to reduce taxes. He doesn't say which he proposes. He talks instead about efficiency and eliminating waste. Now, the Government is always working to eliminate waste, and trying to achieve better management. In order to make the Government more efficient, I have sent a great many reor- ganization plans to the Congress. Most of these plans were approved by the Congress and are now in effect. Much has been achieved under them. More would have been achieved if the Congress had not turned down my other reorganization plans — and it was usually the Republicans that led the attack on them. Great progress has been made in the mili- tary establishment in the last few years to- ward eliminating waste and improving effi- ciency. A single program by the Army for reclaiming and rebuilding old equipment has saved hundreds of millions of dollars. The Army has improved a great deal in that re- spect since the Republican candidate was Chief of Staff. Further improvement is always possible. And I think real progress will be made along this line by Adlai Stevenson, who is known in Illinois — and elsewhere — as a tightfisted man with a dollar. Now I see no reason to expect that the Re- publican candidate will do as well. He was in a position to cut waste in the military, as Chief of Staff of the Army. But I do not recall that he brought about any conspicuous examples of doing so. He certainly did no better in this respect than General Marshall before him or General Bradley and General Collins after him. And he knows that mili- tary expenditures simply cannot be cut enough to reduce taxes, without weakening our defense and injuring our national security. This is just the old flim-flam, and the Re- publican Party hopes that we will be so dazzled by their general, that we will not see through his specious arguments. Now I am urging you to keep your eye on the ball. We have to realize that this mili- tary candidate is simply a front man for the party that has fought price and rent control, and has tried to open loopholes in our con- trol laws and our tax laws for the powerful interests. And remember, while prices may be high today, and the dollar may not be worth as much as it once was, it is a lot easier to get a dollar today — and there are a lot more of them. I'll agree that a dollar would buy more in 1932. But in 1932 it took many people an entire day's labor to earn a dollar. Is that what we want to go back to? There was a situation in 1932 where the vast majority of us did not have any dollars and we had to go and beg and sell apples. So when you go out to the polls on No- vember the 4th, look at the record of the Democrats in the Congress. Look at the record of the Republicans in the Congress and decide which is your party — where your interest lies. Look at the abilities of the candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presi- dency. Look where they stand on the great issues of this day. Decide which party and which candidates deserve your trust to lead this country through the difficult days ahead. Now, if you do this, I have no doubt for whom you will vote. You will elect a Democratic Congress, and you will elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman over- whelmingly. note: The President spoke at 3:15 p.m. in the Public Square at Cleveland, Ohio. During his remarks he referred to Democratic candidate for Senator Michael V. DiSalle, Representatives Robert Crosser and Michael A. Feighan, Democratic candidates for Representative Chat Paterson and Michael P. O'Brien, Governor Frank J. Lausche, and Mayor Thomas A. Burke of Cleveland, all of Ohio; and to Senator Homer H. Capehart of Indiana. 769 [288] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents 288 Address at Memorial Hall in Buffalo. October 9, 1952 THE WELCOME you have given me re- minds me of the welcome I received when I came here in 1948. I shall always remember that. And I shall also remember the good majority that Buffalo gave me in that election. Now, this year I want you to give an even bigger majority to Adlai Stevenson. Also, I want you to turn in good majorities for the Democratic ticket in this great State. You people here have a chance to send three good Democrats to Congress. Two of them have represented you in Congress before. They have good, liberal records. They did a fine job for you in Washington. They are An- thony Tauriello and Chester Gorski. I hope you will send them back again, and I believe you will. In the 42d District, you have a candidate who knows all about the needs of this area. He is E. Dent Lackey, and if you send him to Congress, you will have someone who will look out for your interests and not just the interests of the big business lobbies. For the Senate, you have John Cashmore of Brooklyn. He is an able, well-qualified, and a good man, and I hope you will elect him. You have one Senator in the Senate of whom I am very fond already, and that is Senator Lehman. He is a wonderful Sen- ator. He is always on the side of the people. This year I am not campaigning for my- self— but for something I believe to be neces- sary to the progress and prosperity of this country. It is vitally necessary for the wel- fare of this country that we have a Demo- cratic victory in November. I am not asking for anything for myself. I have had a rugged 4 years since I saw you last, and I have received a lot of mud and brickbats. But I don't feel too badly about those attacks that have been made on me, because I know the reason for them. It is that I have been working for the interests of the people. If a President is truly working for the peo- ple, the special interest lobbies and the one- party press are sure to start smearing and slandering him. If he resists the big inter- ests— if he tries to keep price control on the big corporations, for example, if he tries to prevent the oil companies or the gas com- panies from robbing the public — then it doesn't matter how decent he is, or how honest, the editorials and the hatchet com- mentators will try to make him look like a monster. My daughter never thought I looked like one. On the other hand, if a President, or even a candidate for President, is on the side of the big interests, then no matter how he may behave, or what preposterous things he may say, the newspaper publishers will try to cover up for him and present him to the peo- ple as a great statesman. That is what they are doing for their Republican candidate this year. So, on the whole, I am proud of the at- tacks that have been made on me. I have made my fair share of mistakes, I know; but I am confident that while I have been Presi- dent, I have represented the 150 million peo- ple who don't have a lobby down there in Washington working for them. There's the oil lobby, the real estate lobby, and the National Association of Manufacturers lobby, and the railroad lobby, and the Amer- ican Medical Association lobby. There's a lobby for this, that, and the other thing, so the President has to look out for the inter- ests of the 150 million people who can't afford lobbyists in Washington. And I know Adlai Stevenson will do that for you when you elect him, just as I have done it. One of the things for which I have been most savagely attacked is my effort to pre- serve the Bill of Rights, the greatest part of the Constitution of the United States, and the spirit of mutual tolerance and fair play 770 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 9 [288] that we must have to hold this Nation together. Ours is a nation of many different groups, of different races, different national origins and different religions. The American principle is that all men shall have equal rights before the law and that all men have equal rights in our economic life. This is the idea that holds us together, and it has made us the greatest nation in the history of the world. But, my friends, this principle is always under attack. Some people are always try- ing to cut down the liberties of others — or block the progress of racial or national groups different from their own. Let me tell you this; the President, who- ever he may be, is, in many cases, the last line of defense against those attacks on your free- dom. And it is better to be sure that you have a man in the White House, these next 4 years, who understands what it takes to preserve your rights. It is better for you to have a man who is not afraid to use the powers of his office to veto measures that en- danger your liberty. For I believe the pres- sures are going to be heavier than ever, these next 4 years, to break down the principles of the Bill of Rights. And, quite frankly, this is one part of the job of being President that you better not turn over to a professional military general. Now I want to tell you tonight about a fight that has been going on, during my term of office, over this question of equality and freedom. I want to show you how the Democratic Party in Congress has been on the side of the people in this fight, and the Republican Party in Congress has been against us. Many of us have ties — of kinship or na- tional origin — with lands beyond the sea. We feel deeply the trials and troubles those nations are experiencing. We are distressed by the terrible ordeal of the people of Poland and Hungary and other countries of Eastern Europe behind the godless Iron Curtain. We know the struggles of the people of such nations as Italy and Greece, to withstand communism and find employment and prosperity. We want to help these people and we have been helping them. We have been helping them through our Government and through the efforts of individuals and private or- ganizations. We have sent relief to them. I understand that the people of Buffalo did an extraordinary job of sending clothing for overseas relief; and I congratulate you on it. We have helped displaced persons from some of these countries. Our whole foreign policy is designed to strengthen these countries where they are still free, and to work toward the day of freedom for those that are enslaved. We are engaged in a great effort around the world to hold back the godless forces of Communist aggression, and to prevent an- other world war. We helped the Greeks to defeat the Communist invasion of their soil, and our aid has kept Turkey free and inde- pendent. Through the Marshall plan and military aid, we strengthened the free coun- tries of Europe. We have helped them to crush the Communist conspiracy within their borders, and to build defenses against the Communist threat from without. One of the great victories in this fight was the support we gave to the cause of freedom in the elections in Italy in 1948. The letters that citizens of this country wrote to their friends and relatives in Italy that year, did a great deal to turn the tide against commu- nism in Europe. Those letters showed that the people of this country, as well as this Government, have made common cause with free men around the world in the fight against communism. We have done more than this. We have built the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza- tion, and helped to set up a unified army to defend Europe. We have brought a new Germany back into the community of na- tions. In the Far East, we have helped to set up a group of new and independent na- tions, from India to the Philippines. We 771 [288] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents are strengthening them against communism. We have restored Japan to its place on the side of freedom. At the point where Communist armed aggression threatened to break through, in Korea, we have held the dyke. This has cost us much, and the sacrifices still go on. But if it checks the Communist plan of con- quest, and prevents a third world war, it will have been worth all the losses and all the pain. This is what we have been doing, around the world, and it has brought new life to free men everywhere. It has brought new hope and courage to the hearts of those who still must live under the Communist yoke. But we must not encourage rash adven- tures. We are not going to ask the unarmed people of the Iron Curtain countries to rise up against their aggressors, and sacrifice themselves before firing squads of the Krem- lin. That may be what the Republican candidate for President and his foreign policy advisers are urging — in order to get votes in this country. But we are not going to do it. It might lead to war, and it would cer- tainly be a useless slaughter of brave men and women behind the Iron Curtain. There is, however, one more thing we want to do, and we find it very hard to do, because of Republican opposition. That is to find new homes and new opportunities, particularly in our own country, for some of the people of those lands. Our immigration laws bar the way to this kind of help. They keep us from doing what we should for the refugees from the Soviet terror, and for the victims of overcrowding in the free countries. Now, I want to tell you something about these laws. Our immigration laws are based on the National Origin Quota System. This sys- tem limits the immigration quotas of each European country, in accordance with the past contribution of that country to the population of the United States. Under this system, we can admit over 65,000 British sub- jects every year, although very few want to come over. But we can only admit 6,500 from Poland or 5,600 from Italy or 308 from Greece — countries where the need is great and pressing. This National Origin Quota System is a Republican invention. It was conceived and written into law under a Republican Presi- dent and a Republican Congress in the io^o's. It is based on a discredited and un-Ameri- can theory of racial superiority. That theory considers the so-called nordics from England and Northern Europe to be superior to per- sons born in Italy, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or any other country of Southern or Eastern Europe. It's all wrong. Now the Republicans took full credit for this discriminatory policy. They boasted of it, as one of their achievements, in their 1932 platform. It is, of course, necessary to regulate the flow of immigration and to have some kind of limitation on numbers. It is also neces- sary to exclude undesirable individuals. But I think it is un-American to exclude a quali- fied, worthy individual just because he comes from Poland or Italy or Hungary. And that is exactly what happens under this Republi- can law. The policies of the Republican Party haven't changed very much since they wrote this law in 1924. Let me prove that to you. After the Second World War, I wanted to do something to help the millions of up- rooted and homeless persons in Europe. At my urging, the 80th Congress adopted the Displaced Persons Act. That was neces- sary to get around the restrictions of the National Origin Quota System, and let a substantial number of those people in. But the 80th Congress wrote in to the Displaced Persons Act provisions that deliberately dis- criminated against Catholics and Jews. I made those provisions a campaign issue in 1948, and after we won, the Democratic 8 1 st Congress repealed them. Now the Displaced Persons Act has ex- pired. There are still people in Europe that 772 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 9 [288] need our help. First, there are the brave men and women who manage to escape the Soviet terror and cross the Iron Curtain. Then, there are thousands of desirable immi- grants in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Greece. But we cannot help these peo- ple as we want to because of the old Repub- lican National Origin Quota System. So, this year — get this, now — so this year I asked the Congress to modify our laws again to let some of these people in. And what did they do? They passed a bill which does nothing for this emergency problem in Europe, and which reenacts the National Origin Quota System. This new law — which is just as unfair as the old to the people of Southern and East- ern Europe — had the support of the Repub- licans in the Senate, 4 to 1. I vetoed that law, and they passed it over my veto. Now this law bears the name of a Demo- cratic Senator. And I'm sorry that it does, but he is not my kind of Democrat. My kind of Democrat was fighting against that law, and the leader of that fight was your own brave Senator Lehman. He has done more to expose the whole injustice of our immigration laws than any- one else. And he has had a lot of good Democratic support. Now the Democratic Party is not going to give up on this issue. Our platform this year pledges us to work against the unfair and unjust features of the present law, and to get a decent law in its place. And I have appointed a commission to study the pres- ent law in operation, and to report to me before the next Congress meets. But the Republican platform doesn't even have the word immigration in it. The fact is the Republicans are well satisfied with the unfair immigration law we now have. It could not have been enacted without their almost solid support in the Congress. And I know it couldn't have passed over my veto without their support. The Republican candidate for President was asked about immigration, but he didn't have any views on the subject. The Re- publican candidate for Vice President was one of the Senators who voted in favor of this unjust law, and he voted to override my veto. So now you know where the top Repub- licans stand. They're just against us, as usual. If you want that law changed — if you want a decent break for the brave anti- Communist people of Europe — you'd better vote the Democratic ticket. The National Origin Quota System isn't the only bad feature of this new immigration law. The whole statute breathes prejudice against the foreign born — alien and natural- ized citizen alike. It establishes a cruel and restrictive procedure against aliens, and a second class status, before the law, for naturalized citizens. And that, my friends, is an outrage of the worst sort. Now the excuse for these discriminatory and restrictive provisions is the fear of com- munism. Because we are opposed to com- munism, we are asked to adopt restrictions that violate the spirit of our institutions — restrictions that bear most heavily on persons from such countries as Italy, Greece, and Poland, who are just as opposed to commu- nism as we are here in this country. Now what is the logic in that? I'll tell you — there just isn't any. There is no logic in it — but there is plenty of prejudice — prejudice against people with foreign names and foreign backgrounds. Why is it that the politicians who make the loudest noise about being against com- munism are usually the ones who oppose for- eign aid, and favor new legal restrictions on aliens and on naturalized citizens? I wish somebody would answer that question for me. Why, in this country, every good citizen is opposed to communism. We have taken firm measures against it. We have prose- cuted the leaders of communism for break- ing our laws, and we have a complete se- curity system for our Federal Government. 773 [288] Oct. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents We have the FBI, which is doing a good job — and we have counter-espionage activi- ties that I can't talk about because they are secret. And our intelligence agencies are constantly on the alert. What then, is all this current oratory on the Republican side about? Well, I am going to tell you. There is a group of hotheads — mostly Re- publicans, with a few Democrats — who want to break down all our constitutional guar- antees in dealing with the problem of com- munism. They want to do away with the Bill of Rights, whenever a man is accused of communism. They want to be able to deport a man on the basis of mere suspicion. And they are trying heroically to do it. I don't call it very heroic, either. This im- migration law that I vetoed was a step in the direction of such lawless and unconsti- tutional procedures. But I am not going to yield to this pressure to weaken the Bill of Rights — and neither, if I know him, will Adlai Stevenson. Because the Bill of Rights protects us all. Once it is broken down in one direction, the irrational forces of prejudice and hate will break through, and endanger all of us. And the first people to suffer, if this happens, will be naturalized citizens and those of foreign parentage — and all those whose roots in this country are relatively new. This sort of thing has happened before in our history. It happened in the days of the "Know-Nothings," a secret party dedicated to hatred of immigrants and of the Catholic Church. It happened after World War I, when a wave of hysteria about communism led to violent and illegal acts against aliens and persons of foreign extraction and labor organizations. It could happen again, unless we hold firm against prejudice and racial hatred — unless we stand on the Bill of Rights and hold a man innocent until he is proved guilty. I have been trying to stand firm on that principle. I have been abused and criticized for it. But I am sure that it has been in the best interests of my country. So now I say to you tonight, beware of the candidate whose sole stock in trade is self-proclamation of anti-communism. Be- ware of a party that tries to make votes out of false charges about communism. The hysteria, the irrational fear, that they are manipulating in one direction today, may turn against other groups tomorrow. Once these deep forces of prejudice and unreason are set loose, no man can tell where they will go. They could tear our Nation apart, setting group against group, creed against creed, the older immigrant stocks against the newer. Let us recognize this menace, and defend our American principles against it — our principles of tolerance and equality before the law, and adherence to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. The way to do that, my friends, is to vote for the party that has stood firm for civil rights and civil liberties and a decent immigration law. The way to do that is to vote for a man whose career shows that he understands our system of constitutional lib- erty, and that he has the courage to defend it, and that man is Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. note: The President spoke at 9:30 p.m. in Memorial Hall at Buffalo, N.Y. During his remarks he re- ferred to Anthony F. Tauriello, Chester C. Gorski, and E. Dent Lackey, Democratic candidates for Representative, John Cashmore, Democratic candi- date for Senator, and Senator Herbert H. Lehman, all of New York. 774 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 10 [289] 289 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New York. . October 10, 1952 [1.] Batavia, New York (Rear platform, 10:42 a.m.) I enjoyed my stop here very much in 1948, and I am glad to be back. I am here, if you don't know it — I am here campaigning for the Democratic ticket. I have enjoyed meeting your local candi- dates. I hope you will support them. And vote for them: for Senator, John Cashmore, he will make a fine colleague for Governor Lehman, who is one of the best Senators in the Senate; and for Congress, Richard Judson. For President we have a very able man — Adlai Stevenson. He is the best new leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt. Like Roosevelt, Stevenson has been a fine, progressive Governor of one of our great States. And, like Roosevelt, Adlai Steven- son is a real friend of the plain everyday man. John Sparkman is his running mate, and he is the same kind of man. He is a true progressive, a real friend of the farmer, and of labor — always fighting for the people. These are men you can trust to understand your problems and work for your interests. I have here a copy of the Batavia Daily News for September 12. It was sent to me the other day, and on the front page is a news story that interests me very much. The headline says: "Production Workers in Demand . . . Area Manufacturing Plants Report . . . Jobs . . . Unfilled." Then the article says: "Batavia area industries are in urgent need of manpower . . . production and factory workers are in top demand in Batavia." Now that's fine. That is what I like to see. That shows that our full employment policy is working. And, my friends, it is working not only here, it is working all over the country. The Republicans have been going around saying that all this is artificial, this prosperity we have. They say it's all because of the defense effort. Otherwise, to hear them talk, we would be having a depression right now. Well, that just isn't so. We were enjoy- ing prosperity — the greatest ever — in the first half of 1950, before we had this big defense effort. Our prosperity is a lot more solid than the Republicans would have you think. It is solid because for 20 years the people have had a government that believes in prosperity and full employment. Take our social security program and our minimum wage laws, and our policy of en- couraging workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. These things help greatly to boost the incomes of the working people. By our policies toward the workingman, we have helped build up the markets of the farmer and the businessman. And by our progressive farm programs, we have helped the farmer to increase his income, so that he can be a consumer of the products that the city workers make. These are the ways we keep our prosperity strong and healthy and growing all the time. Now the Republicans have never under- stood this. All they can think of is profits. And it never occurs to them that the way to make more profits is by building up the buy- ing power of our people. The Republicans in Congress have fought and hampered almost every measure we have devised to help the working people. They fought social security. They fought mini- mum wages. They fought the Wagner Act. They even fought and voted against the full employment bill we passed in 1946. In 1946 we still had a Democratic Congress. That was before that terrible 80th Congress came in. Now, you working people here, I give you fair warning. The Republicans in Con- 775 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents gress, the Old Guard who run the party, have always stood and voted against your interests. And they are taking the same stand today. Read their party platform. Read the speeches of their five-star candidate. Or better still, read what Senator Taft says the candidate believes in. Then you will know the Republicans are still the same as al- ways— and no friends of the ordinary man. And you farmers around here, don't you think you can stand by while the Republicans put the squeeze on the working people. I am told that four-fifths of the farm- ers around here participate in our agricul- tural conservation program. Well, did you know that just this last year a big majority of the Republicans in Congress voted to cut out three-fourths of the funds for that very program? Of course you didn't know it. The kept press won't tell you about it, and if you don't read the Congressional Record you never will find out what goes on in the Congress. The Democrats saved the money this time, but what do you think will happen next year, if the Republicans grab oil the Con- gress and the White House, too? You had better find out about the people who represent you down in Washington. You had better think about who is for you, and who is against you. You had better realize that the farmers and workers are on the same side of the fence, no matter what the Republican orators may tell you. And you had better go and vote for the party that has always looked after the farmer, and the worker, and all the plain people. And that is the Democratic Party. Think of your own interests when you go to the polls. Now you are the Govern- ment— you are the Government, and when you don't vote in your own interests and you don't vote for progress in this country you are just injuring yourselves. Now I want to say to you young people, you had better do a little studying for the future, because it is going to be your turn to run this Government pretty soon. You had better find out what it means to go forward, instead of trying to turn the clock back to William McKinley. If you look out for your own interests, you will go home and tell your mama and papa to vote the Democratic ticket and keep the country safe another 4 years. [2.] Rochester, New York (Station plat- form, 11:30 a.m.) I am delighted to see so many people here today. I had a most wonderful reception when I was here the last time. I understand that the newspapers of New York State are supporting the Republicans about 12 to 1 in the Republican campaign of misrepresentation now going on. So I am glad to have this opportunity to get some of the real facts and issues out into the open. First of all, I want to urge you to go to the polls on November the 4th and elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman as President and Vice President. They're a first-class team, a team that will carry on the splendid traditions of the Democratic Party. These traditions have a lot of roots here in New York. This is the State of Al Smith, of Franklin Roosevelt, and of Herbert Leh- man. Adlai Stevenson is of the same mold as those three great Democratic Governors. His administration in Illinois has been one of the most able and progressive the State has ever had. He will go down in the his- tory of this Nation as one of its ablest Presidents. Adlai Stevenson is a man of whom the Democratic Party can be, and is, extremely proud. I also want to urge you to send to the Con- gress two men who will uphold the great traditions of New York Democracy: John Cashmore for the United States Senate; and Victor Kruppenbacher for the House of Rep- resentatives. Adlai Stevenson will need the support of men like these in this critical period. Now, I have been on a trip all across the 776 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Oct. 10 [289] country, talking to the people, trying to put a lot of facts into the record. The Repub- licans in this campaign are telling more half truths — more deliberate, unvarnished lies — than in any other campaign in my recollec- tion. And I can remember them for 40 years. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent hasn't even tried to talk about the issues. Instead, he's gone around the coun- try putting out a smokescreen to hide the issues. He's shouting — just give me a chance, and I'll pour it on them — about cor- ruption in the Government, when he knows that only a tiny fraction of the Govern- ment's 2!/2 million employees have even the slightest taint of corruption on them. And he knows that the corrupt employees have been fired, have been tried and convicted where the laws have been violated. He knows that we have reorganized the Gov- ernment and reduced the number of patron- age jobs. He's gone around the country making ^ these loose charges about communism in the Government. He knows better than that. He knows that for years the Government has had an effective program to keep the Com- munists out of Government service. In the end, the people are not going to be fooled by a campaign of lies. They are not going to be taken in by a smokescreen cam- paign. In the end, they're going to vote on the issues, as they always have. They're going to demand that the Republican candi- date take a stand on the issues. And that will be fatal for the Republican candidate. He doesn't know anything about most of the issues. He's been a mili- tary man all his life. And his speeches show that since he left the Army he hasn't even attempted to master the complex problems of civil government that he would have to face as President. The Republican candidate did take a stand on one issue, and that's what I want to tell you about today. Along with being in favor of honesty and against sin, he's in favor of the expansion of American industry. He has taken a firm and unequivocal stand in favor of building our economy. And that, he says, requires "a wholly new climate in Washington." That sounds as if the idea of a growing and expanding economy was a new one to him. It sounds as if someone had just told him about it. What kind of economy, I wonder, does the man think we have? An expanding economy has been the central ob- jective of the Democratic Party throughout these postwar years. Our achievements in the expansion of the economy are some of our proudest achievements. There has never been anything to equal them in the history of the world. The Republican candidate has shown that he has no understanding at all of what's been going on in our economy. Our total national production is now $336 billion a year — almost three times what it was in 1932 and twice what it was in the peak year of the Republicans in 1929. And that's after making adjustments for price changes. In other words, the production of our economy has grown as much in the last 20 years, under the Democratic administra- tions, as it had grown in the whole history of the Republic up to that time. And yet the Republican candidate says we need Repub- licans "to revive in the American economy its inherent power to grow." That's just poppycock! Right now, the American economy is adding to its productive plant at the fastest rate in all its history. Private capital is in- vesting in new plant and equipment at the rate of about $30 billion a year. Think of it — $30 billion a year. That indicates the response of private enterprise to a climate in Washington that has never been more favorable to it. All this growth makes this country much stronger in case we ever had to defend our- selves against Communist aggression. But these new plants will also be a tremendous resource when the defense program tapers off. They can be used for making all the things we need that we haven't been able to 777 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents make in the last 2 years because of the defense program. Now just why do the Republicans want to change the climate in Washington that's bringing about the greatest industrial expan- sion in the history of the world? I'll tell you why they want to change the climate. The Republicans don't like the way the benefits of our prosperity are distributed. They want to see more of the profits of the American enterprise go into the dividends of the big corporations and less of it into the pockets of workingmen, the small business- men, and the farmers. Now, my friends, that is the issue, pure and simple. They want to rewrite the tax laws to give the breaks to big business. They want to rewrite the price control law to let the speculators make a killing. They want to rewrite the labor laws to make them even more biased against labor than the Taft- Hartley Act already is. That's what the Republicans mean when they talk about a change in Washington. But they're completely shortsighted about the whole issue. They're still as short- sighted as they were in the Republican 1920's when the whole object of the Government policy was to help the rich and the privileged. The thing the Republicans have never un- derstood is that when only big business is helped, the country as a whole is hurt. Eventually, big business and everybody else is dragged down in a general depression — which happened in 1929. You don't have a prosperous country un- less the little man — the farmer, the worker, the small businessman — is well off, too. And when the little man prospers, big business gets along just fine. We have proved that point over and over again since World War II. At the end of the war, the Republicans hooted at the whole idea of having 60 million jobs. We now have more than 62 million people employed, at good wages. Farm prices and farm in- come are high. This is good for the farmers and for the workers. It's good for the shop- keepers and the salesmen and everybody else who has things to sell. And what about corporations? Believe me, they're doing all right. Corporate profits before taxes in 1950 were almost $40 billion, and last year they were $43 billion. That is more than four times the profits earned in 1929 — the peak year before the Republican depression. And it compares with a net loss of $3 billion in 1932 — the bottom year of the Republican depression. Even after taxes, corporations made $21 billion in profits in 1950 and $19 billion last year — more than double the 1929 earn- ings. The Republican candidate can't deny we're having prosperity with a Democratic cli- mate in Washington. So he resorts to the false charge that we have what he calls a "war prosperity" created by the defense pro- gram. The answer to that is very clear. All he has to do is to look at the figures for 1948 and 1949 and 1950, before the defense pro- gram got underway. We were breaking all kinds of records in 1950. And I just want to remind you that the period after World War II — when this pres- ent so-called "bungling" administration was in office — was the first time in our history that a major war has not been followed by a depression. It's just plain dishonest for the Republican candidate to overlook these facts. Now, I know that many of you are con- cerned about what is going to happen when the defense program tapers off. Will there be jobs to take up the slack? Nobody knows, of course, exactly what lies ahead of us. But this much I will say to you — there can be jobs to take up the slack when the defense program drops away. It may not happen, if your Government fol- lows the wrong policies. But if you have a government that follows the right policies, our post-defense economy can boom to even greater levels than those we now enjoy. I say that with confidence because I am 778 Harry S. Truman, J952 Oct. 10 [289] aware of all the peacetime work that has been piling up while we've been building our defenses. This work will still need do- ing as fast as money and materials become available again. And in the aggregate, this work should more than counterbalance any cutbacks in defense that we can now foresee. Ultimately, of course, the reason we can look forward to future economic growth rests in our solid and expanding consumer markets, based on a full employment policy. These markets will grow as population grows — and it is rising fast. With proper programs to help assure good incomes for our workers and our farmers — with more and better social security, minimum wages, farm price supports, and other measures — we can be confident that our consumers will have funds to buy what we produce. For all these reasons I am confident we can keep full employment, keep our country growing and need suffer no depression, if and when the defense effort slacks off. But I am just as sure that these things will not come about, unless our National Govern- ment is dedicated heart and soul, to a na- tional policy of continuing expansion and full employment. You cannot count on that kind of govern- ment from the Republican Party. The Republican Party is controlled and dominated by big businessmen. To them, full employment is something that's per- fectly all right if it just happens, but not something to get terribly concerned about. They don't believe in using, or do they know how to use, the powers of government to keep this economy on an even keel. They let you down in the 1930's, before you sent your great Governor, Franklin Roosevelt, down to Washington. They'll do it again, if you give them a chance. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is committed to a policy of full employment. It is made up of ordinary people to whom full employment is a matter of bread and butter, or life and death. The Democratic Party has achieved full employment in the difficult postwar years. It understands a basic economic fact — that to have full em- ployment the Government has got to con- cern itself with the little man — with the farmer, the worker, and the small business- man. The Democratic Party is not going to let you down. Now you people — you people are the Government. The Constitution says that the power of government is in the people. They exercise that power when they go to the polls to vote. It is your duty to familiar- ize yourselves with the record of the Demo- cratic Party in the Congress and the record of the Republican Party in the Congress; and then decide which, in your judgment, is the best party to have in control of your Govern- ment for the next 4 years. I will leave that to the record. If you will read the record, you can't do but one thing, and that is to send Adlai Stevenson to the White House. [3.] Syracuse, New York (Near station, 1:25 p.m.) I am happy to be here today again. You gave me a wonderful reception 4 years ago, even if it was raining cats and dogs all the time I was here. This year, I am not campaigning for my- self. I am out working for a new man on the Democratic ticket, my good friend Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Adlai Stevenson has an outstanding record of public service. He is a man the people can trust. I understand that you people here are really to be congratulated. I am told that Thomas Corcoran is the first Democratic mayor your city has had in 24 years, and I congratulate you on it. Now this year you have a chance to follow that excellent example by sending Arthur McGuire to the House, and John Cashmore to the Senate to really represent you in the Congress as you should be. I have been traveling for 2 weeks now, through about 20 States. I have seen a lot 779 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents of this country, and I can tell you this great Nation of ours is in good shape. Never has there been as much growth or so much activity as there is today. That is true up and down this land of ours, just as it is here in this great State of New York. Private enterprise is confident of the fu- ture. Large and small businesses are en- joying good profits. Their customers have money, because we have good farm prices and good wages, and steady jobs for all who want them. We have almost forgotten that there can be such things as mass unemployment, bank failures, dollar-a-day wages, and 30-cent wheat. Those things have long been ban- ished, along with the Republicans who brought them upon us. Now, what is the reason for this confi- dence and this prosperity? It is very, very simple. The programs of the Federal Gov- ernment in the past 20 years have made America a land of individual security, and at the same time a land of tremendous opportunity. In these 20 years the Democratic Party has shown that individual security and oppor- tunity go together. They must be worked for together, and the Democrats know how to do it. The Republican Party in Congress has opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country. The Repub- lican Party has blindly turned its back on the tradition of public action for the public good. I wonder why they have done that? Well, it is because the Republican Party has be- come a collection of special interest groups. A special interest group, by definition, can never see beyond the limits of its own greed for the almighty dollar. The insurance companies, back in 1935 and 1936, couldn't see anything in social security beyond the fact they would not be writing the insurance policies. So they were against it — and they got the Republican Party against it. The utility companies couldn't see any- thing in our great public power projects beyond the fact that private companies would not make a profit on the power. So they were against these projects, and auto- matically the Republican Party came out against them, too. Al Smith and Franklin Roosevelt taught you people all about that, many years ago. The real estate lobby couldn't see any- thing in low-cost public housing beyond the fact that houses were going to be built and their members would not make any money out of them. So they were against public housing, and automatically the Republican Party came out against public housing. And so it goes, down through the whole list. The policies of the Republican Party are the total of all the negative attitudes of all the special groups that put money into and pull the strings for the Republican Party. Now, this year, the special interest groups that are in the Republican Party have as their candidate a man who has been in the Army and out of civilian life for over 40 years. Until last June, he had lived the specialized life of the soldier, under orders all the time. The great issues that mean bread and but- ter to a lot of us, have passed him by com- pletely. He has had the cares of an Army officer, but not those of a civilian trying to make a living. He has never met a payroll in his life, nor carried a precinct — and he doesn't know a special interest lobby when he sees one. Now this is just the kind of man the spe- cial interests can move in on, and take over. And that is exactly what they have been doing. The General told the Republican Convention in July that he would lead them on a "great crusade." But he did not tell them what the crusade was going to be about. Like all good generals, he was waiting for his objective to be set by higher authority. He was ready to lead the troops, but he didn't know what the campaign was for. That was a problem that he as a military man had never had to decide for himself 780 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 10 [289] before, so the Republican Old Guard moved in and wrote his orders for him. The directive was drafted by Senator Taft at that famous breakfast in New York City a few weeks ago. Senator Taft left that meeting and told the press what the General stands for. Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping social- ism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scareword they have hurled at every ad- vance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost any- thing that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, "Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Tru- man's Fair Deal." That is what he means. Now, it is a sad thing to see this man led around by those of little faith and no vision. It is a sad thing to see this man betraying his principles, deserting his friends, all for the sake of the votes he hopes to gain from Taft and Jenner and McCarthy. This campaign has already demonstrated that a military man should stick to his profes- sion. We do not need any additional proof. I can think of no worse combination in the White House than a military man, ignorant of all our problems, surrounded and controlled by the most backward-looking politicians in our national life. My friends, don't turn the country over to that Republican combination. Look out for your own interests. You are the Govern- ment. The Constitution of the United States says the power of the Government in this great Nation of ours shall rest in the people. And when you exercise that power, you can only do it by votes. When you go to the polls on the 4th of November and exercise the power of govern- ment— which is in you — you must look out for your own interests, you must look out for the interests of this great Nation, you must look out for the interests of the world as a whole — the free countries as a whole, for which we are now responsible. I urge you — study the issues. Read the record. Read the record of both parties — the Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats in the Congress — because they are the ones that make the policy. It is not made on the stump. The record I am pointing to is a record that has been in your interest. The record these gentlemen are talking about doesn't exist — for they haven't any record, except what is bad for the people. Go to the polls now and exercise your authority as the power in the Government. Send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. Thank you very much. [4.] Oneida, New York (Rear platform, 2:10 p.m.) I am certainly happy to be back in your good city again this afternoon. I want to thank that band for coming out again, like they did when I was here in 1948. You remember I held the train for the band be- fore. You were very nice to me when I stopped here 4 years ago. Now I realize that this area has a reputation for being pretty strongly Republican, but I think we ought to be able to make a lot of converts to the Democratic way this year. If you vote Democratic, you can count on continuing to have a government that is in your interests and for your welfare. I hope you will vote to send good Democrats down 781 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents to Washington to represent you there. The candidate for Senator — who was just intro- duced to you by Senator Lehman — John Cashmore, is a wonderful man. I have known him a long time. And I know that Dr. Wilson will give you the right sort of representation in the Congress. Nationally, the Democratic ticket is headed by two of the best men who ever ran for President and Vice President: Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman. Adlai Stevenson has made a wonderful record as Governor of Illinois, and I know he will make a great President. He will fight for the plain peo- ple of the country, and he will see to it that this is the kind of country you want to live in, and want your children to grow up in. The most important thing of all is that Governor Stevenson is a man of peace. You know, the President of the United States has the most important job in the world. He has more to do with whether or not we shall have peace in the world than any other in- dividual in the world. These are critical times we are going through, because the dan- ger of Communist aggression threatens us with another world war. It will take all our wisdom and courage and patience, and a lot of hard work, to avoid an all-out war. Governor Stevenson understands these things. If you have been listening to his speeches, you know that he has met the for- eign policy issues frankly and honestly. He has not been hiding behind vague generalities. Nobody wants war, and the Republican candidate is no exception; he doesn't want war either. But in this struggle for peace, we have to have more than good intentions. A military life is good training, but good training for only one thing, and that is train- ing for war, and the preparation for war. It is not training in the ways of preventing war. That has always been the job of the civilian head of the Government of the United States. The President of the United States, in his capacity as Chief Executive, and in his capacity as Commander in Chief, makes the policies of the United States that can lead to either peace or war. He is the man, for example, who has to decide whether or not to use the atomic bomb. You want to be careful to get a man on that job who can stand up under pressure. Since the Republican candidate started running for President, he has been yielding to some strange advice on foreign policy. He has said some things about liberating foreign peoples that could get us into serious, very serious, trouble if they were followed through to their logical conclusions. He also said some rash and foolish things about big cuts in defense spending, which would crip- ple our Armed Forces and our allies. He seems to have swallowed Senator Taft's whole foreign policy in the guise of a budget cut. I am not altogether sure that he knows the significance of what he has been saying, and that makes it worse. We cannot afford to have a President who is careless about things like this. I have worked for peace for 7 long years. I want world peace above everything else in the world; and I am sure that you feel the same way about it. No man can promise you peace with absolute certainty; but I be- lieve with all my heart our best chance for world peace lies with the election of Adlai Stevenson. So I say to you, for your own welfare here at home, for the good of your great State, and for the welfare of this great country of ours, you should go to the polls on election day and vote the Democratic ticket. You must be sure and register before tomorrow's deadline. Register tomorrow so that next November the 4th you can go out and vote for Adlai Stevenson of Illinois for President. Thank you very much. [5.] Rome, New York (Rear platform, 2:40 p.m.) I remember stopping here in 1948, and I enjoyed it. I have Senator Lehman with me on the train today, and it is always a 782 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 10 [289] privilege to have his company. I have also been talking to your Demo- cratic candidates: John Cashmore for the Senate, and Ray Wilson for Congress. They are good Democrats, and they will represent your interests well if you send them to Wash- ington, as I hope you will. Now I want to tell you something about our candidate for President — Adlai Steven- son of Illinois. You know that he has been the Governor of Illinois for 4 years now, and he has done a great job. His record shows him to be a real friend of all the everyday plain people — a man who works for them, and protects their interests without fear or favoritism. He is the best new leader to come up in this country since Franklin Roosevelt — and like Roosevelt he has had the best experience a man can have for the Presidency by being Governor of a great State. He has had some other experiences, too, which are very valuable and very important to anybody who takes over the Presidential Office in these times. And these things are not so widely known, so today I would like to tell you something about them. I think it is in your interest to know just who Adlai Stevenson is. You may recall that after the fall of France, in 1940, President Roosevelt brought Colonel Stimson into his Cabinet as Sec- retary of War, and Colonel Knox as Secre- tary of the Navy. Secretary Knox had known Adlai Stevenson in Chicago, and thought very highly of him. So Stevenson came down to Washington, too, as the Spe- cial Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. He stayed on that assignment through most of the war, working right beside the Secre- tary on a great number of top-level policy problems. He learned a great deal about our Government in that period of time, and about the relationships between the civilian authorities and the military. This expe- rience was a good deal like Franklin Roose- velt's in World War I. Roosevelt profited enormously by his years in the Navy — and so, I know, did Adlai Stevenson. In the fall of 1943 the Italian Government surrendered to the Allies. We did not hold all of Italy, but the southern part was in our hands. The Germans had left the country in terrible shape, the port of Naples was a total wreck. President Roosevelt got wor- ried about what was to become of the coun- try and the people. So he borrowed Adlai Stevenson from the Navy Department, and sent him to Italy to survey conditions and decide what we ought to do to rehabilitate that great country. Stevenson went all over Sicily and south- ern Italy, and got a firsthand picture of the poverty and misery and economic wretched- ness in that country. Then he came home and made his report. It was an excellent report — history-making in many ways. For he had grasped clearly in this experience the basic ideas which later came to be known as the Marshall plan. Stevenson advised us back in early 1944 that temporary relief for the Italian people was essential, but not enough. He pointed out that we would have to move in and help restore essential industry and commerce and lines of trade. Unless we did that, he told us, the Communists might move in and take over. And he advised us to act first, and act fast — in order that Italy might stay free. The American Government did take action, first in Italy and later throughout Western Europe. The Marshall plan itself was a great expansion of the philosophy of action which Stevenson brought back with him from Italy. There is one more aspect of Governor Ste- venson's career I want to mention. That is his part in launching the United Nations. As a representative of this country, he took a leading part in working out the organiza- tion and procedures of the United Nations, and making it a going concern. Twice after that, I appointed him to serve in our delegations to the General Assembly. He did a brilliant job there, too. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt can testify to that. We would have liked to keep Stevenson in Washington to work full time on foreign 783 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents problems, but he preferred to go back to Il- linois to practice law and get into politics. That was the best decision he ever made — best for himself, best for our country, for that set him on the road to the governorship of Illinois, and to the Presidency of the United States. Now, my friends, remember that it's up to you to send Stevenson and Sparkman to Washington as President and Vice President. And you can't do that — you can't vote for him unless you register. So register today or tomorrow if you have not done it before. And when you go down to the polls to vote on the 4th of November, remember that it is your interests that are at stake. If you vote as you should, you will vote in your interest, you will vote for the welfare of this great Nation of ours, and you will vote for the welfare of the free peoples of the world, because we are the leader of the free peoples of the world — and the President of the United States is the most important figure in that position. You must therefore re- member that if you want good government at home, if you want every effort possible made for peace in the world, vote the Demo- cratic ticket on November the 4th. Thank you very much. [6.] Utica, New York (Rear platform, 3:20 p.m.) It is grand to be back here in Utica this afternoon. I still remember the reception you gave me up here in the Mohawk Valley 4 years ago, even though it was raining cats and dogs when I was here. You turned out to listen to me, and I appreciated it very much. This year I am out again, campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. I want you to distinctly understand that I am not running for anything. You have some fine men running on the Democratic ticket here in New York State: for the House, Ray Wilson; for Senator, John Cashmore. Those two gentlemen will represent you well, if you will send them down to Washington. This year the Democratic Party has two of its best candidates who have ever run for President and Vice President in Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman. Stevenson is be- ing fought by the same special interest groups and the same lobbyists who have al- ways fought me. That is a compliment to him, too. Governor Stevenson has made it clear that he will not yield to pressure. If you elect him President, you will have a man in the White House who will work for all the people, just as I have tried to do for the last 7 years. It is tremendously important to have a man in the White House who will stand firm for his principles. The President has to make decisions that affect the whole country and the whole world. If he does not have the courage and the intellectual honesty to do what he knows is right, the results can be disastrous for us all. That is why I have been so disturbed, and so deeply distressed at the course the Repub- lican candidate has followed in this cam- paign. He has betrayed his principles, and he has deserted his friends. Let me tell you a little story to show you what I mean. Just a few miles outside of Utica is Hamil- ton College. It is a fine liberal arts college. One of Hamilton College's most illustrious graduates is Philip C. Jessup. Philip Jessup married a Utica girl, and worked in one of your Utica banks. He later became a distin- guished professor of international law at Columbia University. I have appointed Ambassador Jessup to some of the most difficult jobs in the public service. He has an honorable record, and has made an outstanding contribution to the cause of world peace. He is a patriot — a fine American; and he has helped his Govern- ment immeasurably in fighting world com- munism. While Ambassador Jessup was on an over- seas assignment aimed at curbing Soviet ex- pansion, he was viciously attacked by Sena- 784 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 10 [289] tor McCarthy. That was in 1950 — which was not a presidential election year. In that year, the president of Columbia University, who is now the Republican candidate for President of the United States, sprang to Jessup's defense. This is what he wrote in 1950 to Philip Jessup, a member of his own faculty who was being unjusdy attacked — and I quote from the General's letter: "No one . . ." — this is a quotation from General Eisenhower's letter — "No one who has known you can for a moment question the depth or sincerity of your devotion to the principles of Americanism." That is the end of the quote. Now the president of Columbia University knew in 1950 that McCarthy's attack was false and without foundation, just as Mc- Carthy's attacks on other loyal public serv- ants have been. If he needed any further proof of the kind of man McCarthy is, he certainly found it in the vile attack McCar- thy made on Gen. George C. Marshall. General Marshall had been the great friend and benefactor of the Republican candidate. He knew — and he knows today — that Gen- eral Marshall's patriotism is above question. And he knows the same thing about Phil Jessup. The Republican candidate knows, or he ought to know, how completely dishonest Joe McCarthy is. He ought to despise Mc- Carthy, just as I expected him to — and just as I do. Now, in his bid for votes, he has endorsed Joe McCarthy for reelection — and humbly thanked him for riding on his train. I can't understand it. I had never thought the man who is now the Republican candi- date would stoop so low. I have thought about this a great deal. I don't think I shall ever understand it. But this much is clear to me. A man who betrays his friends in such a fashion is not to be trusted with the great Office of Presi- dent of the United States. Now, my friends, very fortunately we do not have to trust him with the office. Fortu- nately we have Adlai Stevenson, a man who is worthy of our faith and our trust. And I urge you — I want to make you a request — I urge you to get the record — the Congressional Record — where the votes of the Republicans in Congress, and the votes of the Democrats in Congress are kept. It is the dryest, dullest document in the world, but for your own patriotic welfare and your own patriotic duty you ought to study the records of the men in Congress who are run- ning the Government either one way or the other. And you will find that the Republicans in Congress have voted against every single one of those forward-looking things which the Democratic administration has put into effect during the last 20 years. You will find that no matter what the Republican presidential candidate may say, he will be a prisoner of the isolationist Republicans — and he can't help himself. Now, for your own sake, for your own welfare, for the welfare of the greatest Na- tion in the history of the world, and for the welfare of the free world, go down to the polls on November the 4th and vote the Democratic ticket — and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [7.] Amsterdam, New York (Rear plat- form, 4:30 p.m.) I am happy to be able to stop here this year, just as I did 4 years ago. Only this time I am campaigning not for myself but for the Democratic ticket. You know, I have to explain to these meetings we have been hav- ing on this tour around the country, that I am not running for office because they turned out better this time than they ever did before. Maybe that's the reason. There are some very good men on the Democratic ticket here in this great State of New York. I have been riding with most of them all day. I have been informed that David C. Prince is your candidate for Con- gress, that he is a very able and competent 785 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents man. I know John Cashmore. I know he will make you a great Senator. And I hope that you will follow Governor Lehman's advice and give him a colleague that will go along with him. The Democratic Party is fortunate to have at the head of its ticket Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. These two men have proved by their records of public service that they can be trusted with the great re- sponsibilities of leadership in the tough years ahead. Now I want to talk to you today about a basic American principle that concerns every one of you — the basic American principle that all men regardless of their race, religion, or national origin have equal rights before the law, and also have equal rights in our economic life. That principle has made us the greatest Nation in the history of the world. And Amsterdam offers daily proof of the soundness of that principle. Here in this city, people of different national origins live side by side, work together, bring up their children to be fine American citizens. But this principle of equal rights is al- ways under attack. Some people are always trying to cut down the liberties of others or block the progress of racial or national groups different from their own — or more recently settled in this country. They do this because they are selfish and shortsighted. They do not understand that all the different groups in this country have made great con- tributions to our national progress. One of the worst examples of this situation is the new immigration law — the McCarran Act — that passed the Congress over my veto earlier this year. Our immigration laws are now based on an un-American theory of racial superiority. This theory was written into our immigration laws under a Republi- can President and a Republican Congress in the logo's. That theory holds that the so- called Nordics from England and northern Europe are superior to persons born in coun- tries like Italy, Greece, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. And as a result, the law allows many more immigrants from England and north Europe to enter this country, than from southern or eastern Europe. That's the National Origin Quota System. It is a Republican invention, and they are proud of it. After World War II, we got around this quota system for a while by passing the Dis- placed Persons Act. And this year the Con- gress had a chance to get rid of this whole unfair arrangement once and for all. But what happened? The Congress passed a new law which is even more unfair in its dis- criminations against naturalized citizens and immigrants from southern and eastern Eu- rope. This new law was passed only be- cause the Republicans in the Congress ganged up to support it. I vetoed the bill, but the Republicans in the Senate voted 4 to 1 in favor of it. The bill passed over my veto. It is true the new law bears the name of a Democratic Senator, but I am here to say to you very frankly he's not my kind of a Democrat. My kind of Democrat was fighting against the law, and one of the leaders of that fight was your own Senator Lehman, supported by our vice-presidential candidate, John Sparkman. I want you to keep in mind that the President in this case and many others, is the last line of defense against attacks like these. That is why you need a man in the White House for the next 4 years who under- stands our basic rights and is determined to preserve them. The Republican candidates and the Re- publican Party cannot be trusted to protect these principles. The Republican candidate for president has said that he has no views on the subject of immigration. The Repub- lican candidate for vice president was one of the Senators who first voted for the new im- migration bill, and then voted to override my veto. And the Republican platform does not say one word about the immigration policy of the country. The Democratic platform pledges a fight to rid our law of these unfair restrictions. 786 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 10 [289] And Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman stand squarely in support of its promise to revise our immigration laws. That is one of the reasons the people of this country are going to keep the Demo- cratic Party in control of the White House, and send more Democrats to Congress. That is the only way the people can get ac- tion on this issue — and all the other issues that affect the daily welfare of all the people of this country. Now, you should study the situation. You ought to read the record. You ought to read the record of the great issues that are before the country. The Republicans don't want to discuss issues. They try to sidetrack you, or say foolish things that have not happened. They want to take your mind off the fact that they have been wrong on every issue where the welfare of the country and the welfare of the people who make the country great are at stake. If you study the record, read the fine print in the Congressional Record — read the votes of the Republicans in the Congress, study the votes of the Democrats in the Congress; and see which party has been coming to the front for the welfare of all the people and not just a few. And if you do that, I won't have to ask you to make up your mind to vote the Demo- cratic ticket, because you can't help but do it. Now, remember on November the 4th that unless you register you can't make up your mind one way or the other. And when you don't do that, you are a slacker — and you don't get a chance to vote. And when you don't vote, you get the kind of govern- ment you deserve. Now go down there and register. Then on November the 4th go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and you will have 4 more years of good government. [8.] Schenectady, New York (Platform near the station, 5:05 p.m.) I thank you very much for that welcome. I have been in Schenectady many times, and I made a farm speech here once in 1935, and you know I found out something while I was here that I didn't know before. They were celebrating the 200th anniversary of the opening of the West, and the opening of the West was the Mohawk Valley. I have told that in California, and they just don't understand how that could happen. I inspected your industries here during the war, when I was Chairman of the Com- mittee to Investigate the National Defense Program. I feel quite at home here. As you may have heard, I am out cam- paigning for victory for the Democrats in November. I am doing that in my capacity as the leader of the Democratic Party. That is one of my jobs as President of the United States. You have some very good Democratic candidates here in New York — your candi- date for Congress, David Prince; for Senator, John Cashmore. They are ably qualified to represent you in the Congress. In particular, I urge you to vote the na- tional Democratic ticket — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Both of them are men you can trust to work for you and look out for your interests. Their records prove that they are real friends of the workingman, the farmer, and of all the people. I have been out to San Francisco and back on this trip, and I have seen a very, very prosperous country. This prosperity we have seems to be driving the Republicans crazy. They can't bear to see the country so well off under the Democrats, so they are doing their best to try to explain it away. They have no issues, so all they can do is just yell about Democratic prosperity. The first thing they say is that the coun- try is not prosperous at all. Then they tell you that even if it is, there is something wrong about it. Then they say it can't last, and of course, they have been saying that ever since 1936. When I read their speeches today, I think of Alf Landon and Wendell Willkie and Dewey and it sounds as if they had written the speeches that are being used 787 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents by the Republicans today, because they haven't changed a dime's worth. Now they are trying to tell you that our prosperity can't last, because they say that the defense effort is the only thing holding up the economy. They are trying to get across the notion that the Democrats don't know how to keep this country prosperous except by spending money on national defense. Now this is not true. It is just one more Republican falsehood to scare you and con- fuse you in this campaign. The truth is that our prosperity is very sound and healthy. Right now we have a total national produc- tion of about $340 billion. Defense accounts for less than one-sixth of that output. Now get this straight. If it were not for the defense effort, we would be even more prosperous than we are now. The defense effort is making us postpone and put off a lot of things we need, things that would make our country greater and stronger. Our population is growing fast. Our cities are growing fast. Just look at your own city here. That means a lot of things to do. We need more houses, better and cheaper houses, more roads, more schools, more hospitals. We need more food and more consumers goods of every kind. Thousands of businessmen are all ready now to expand their plants or build new ones. They see bigger markets ahead. That is a sure sign of good times in the future. In all these ways our peacetime work is piling up on us, and as soon as we can ease off on defense all this work will be waiting for us. That means there need be no depression in this country. And there won't be a de- pression if you keep the kind of government in Washington that understands these things, and will help get new production going in the right places and at the right time. That is one thing the Democratic Party knows how to do. And we have proved it. For the first time in history, we have kept you out of a depression after a big war. In 1949, when things started to slide back, we took quick action, and by the spring of 1950 we were back in boom times again. That was before Korea started. The defense buildup had nothing whatever to do with it. But the Republicans are right about one thing. There could be a depression. They ought to know. They are experts at bring- ing them about. The last time they held office, we had two depressions in 12 years — 7 million men out of work in 1921, and 14 million men out of work in 1932. And if they would get in again, it would probably be 24 million out of work. And there isn't a sign in the world that they wouldn't let it happen again. They don't seem to have any notion of how to get prosperity and growth. For 20 years the Republicans have been voting against the Democratic programs for social security and good wages for workers, and against our program for fair prices for farmers — against just about everything else we have been doing to help build the country up. Unfortunately their candidate for Presi- dent is in no position to make them behave any better, even if he wanted to. He has lived the specialized life of a soldier. The Republican candidate has been a fine gen- eral, but the Army is all he has ever known in his whole life. You don't learn much in the Army about what workers and farmers need, or what it's like to be out of a job. Now he is surrounded by the Republican Old Guard, and they have taken him into camp completely. He is just a babe in the woods of Senator Taft. What a combination! — what a combina- tion! That is, a military man who doesn't know anything about civilian problems, in the hands of the reactionaries who speak and work for the banker, the power lobby, the real estate lobby, and all the other special privilege boys. I don't think you can take a chance on turning your country over to an outfit like that. You have got to vote in your own interests. Be sure to register before tomor- row's deadline so you can vote. You are the Government. Don't vote 788 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 10 [289] for the big business government, or the mili- tary government, either. The people in this country are the power in the Government. They control the Government of this coun- try when they exercise their right to vote. And when they do not exercise that right, then if they get bad government, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Now I am urging you just to study the record. Study the record of the Republicans in the Congress for the past 10 years. Study the record of the Republicans in the Con- gress over the past 10 years — or 20, if you want to. And you will find that the Democratic Party has been on the side of the people every time, and the Republicans have been on the side of the special interests. So, on the 4th of November, go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket, and keep the country in safe hands for another 4 years. [9.] Albany, New York (Trainside, 6 p.m.) It is always good to visit Albany — which is real Democratic country. You have voted Democratic in the presi- dential elections ever since 1928, and just this past April in a special election you had the good sense to send Leo O'Brien to Con- gress. He ran on the Democratic record — and he won by a handsome margin. So send him back again. I also urge you to send John Cashmore to the Senate. With Leo O'Brien in the House, and John Cashmore in the Senate you will be represented in Washington as you ought to be. The Democratic Party is going to win this November because the people know the record — the dark Republican record of reac- tion and the bright Democratic record of progress. I am making this trip to help in the elec- tion of two fine candidates for President and Vice President. These are men who have proved they understand the Democratic Party's role in making this country the great place it is — Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man. And I am also trying to convince the peo- ple that it would be a great mistake to elect the Republican candidate for President. There was a time when I thought the present Republican candidate was qualified to be President. I realized, of course, that he would have trouble in political life, as all military men do. But I thought I could rely on his integrity. I believed he would always stand up for the things he had worked so hard to achieve. Whatever else happened, I thought he would defend the international policies that he had done so much in his military career to help create and put into effect. I thought he would stand firmly behind the great de- fense effort we are making to hold off Com- munist aggression and prevent world war three. I thought he could be relied on to give firm support to our allies and to the brave men who are struggling against aggression in Korea. My friends, that is not the case, I am sorry to say. At one time he advocated budget cuts in our national defense program more extreme than those advocated by Senator Taft. The size of his proposed cut varies from speech to speech, and I don't know what the quota- tion is today, but it doesn't make any dif- ference. Everything he has proposed would be a crippling blow to our defense program, and would undo much of the work that is now going forward. By attacking our efforts in Korea and call- ing them a blunder, he has raised questions that strike a blow at the morale of the free nations fighting there. I never thought I would see a general, least of all this one, doing anything that could weaken the morale and faith of our country in the cause for which we are fighting — at the very time when our troops are locked in battle with the enemy. These and other developments have led me to the firm conclusion that the Republi- 55-672- 789 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents can candidate is not qualified to be Presi- dent. If he can't withstand the political pressures of a campaign any better than this, he will not be able to withstand the far greater pressures that beat upon a President in office. I have had some experiences with these pressures, and I think I know what I am talking about. My disillusionment with this general has led me to go back and study the role of other generals in our politics, and I have come to the firm conclusion that we should always keep civilians at the head of our Govern- ment. I think this was intended by the Con- stitution. I think history proves that profes- sional generals should not be President. We have had many fine generals in our history. They have been great and able men who have lived a life of real public service. But they can render that service best in the military life for which they were trained. Military training and military life do not qualify a man to be President. A President has to learn about politics and civil government from experience. Only a man who understands politics thoroughly can keep from being imposed on and pushed around, and used as a tool by politicians. A man who spends all his life in the Army can't possibly learn the business of political life. He has too much else to do. Furthermore, the military life is almost the opposite of political life. A good many of you have been in the Armed Forces and know how different army life is. In the Army a general gets things done by giving orders — but that is not the way the Govern- ment works. A President can't order the people of the United States around. Most good military leaders recognize that their training does not qualify them for the Presidency. Most of them follow the tradi- tion of keeping out of politics. One of our great generals once put this idea very well, in words I shall read to you. He said: "Politics is a profession — a seri- ous, complicated, and in its true sense, a noble one. "In the American scene I see no dearth of men fitted by training, talent, and integrity for national leadership. On the other hand, nothing in the international or domestic situation especially qualifies for the most im- portant office in the world a man whose adult years have been spent in the country's mili- tary forces. At least, this is true in my case." That statement, my friends, was made 4 years ago, by the man who is now the Re- publican candidate for President. It was true then. And it is true today. There is another good reason why profes- sional generals should not become President. One of the basic principles of our Govern- ment is that it should be under civilian con- trol. The military arm of government exists to serve the people. It should never rule them. A professional soldier in the White House might give the military undue power in our Government. Another famous general put this danger very well. He said, and I quote, "It would be a tragic development indeed, if this gen- eration was forced to look to the rigidity of military dominance and discipline . . . nothing is more conducive to arbitrary rule than the military junta. It might well destroy our historic and wise concept which holds to the supremacy of the civil power. . . . The gravity of this danger cannot be over estimated." Now those words were spoken by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. And I certainly agree with him that a civilian President is needed to hold the generals in their proper place in our form of government. And I think I have amply demonstrated that myself. Our political history proves that it is a great mistake to send a professional military man to the White House. In all our history, we have elected a purely professional military man to the Presidency only on two occasions. We have elected other men who had fine military records and who had been generals, like Washington and Jackson and Garfield. But they were not Regular Army men; they were civilians first — lawyers or legislators — and soldiers second. 790 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 10 [289] We have had only two lifelong Army men in the White House. The first was Zachary Taylor, who had been in the Army for 40 years. He was a hero of the Mexican War. He was inaugu- rated in 1849, and died a year and a half later, at the age of 65. In his campaign, he made a lot of promises about cleaning up the Government, and doing away with po- litical patronage. After he was elected, he doled out more political jobs than his prede- cessors, and restored the "spoils system." Instead of cleaning up corruption, he in- creased it. He was succeeded by a Vice President, Millard Fillmore, who made a very unpopular President, I am sorry to say, because he came from New York. The second and last professional military man elected to the Presidency was General Grant. He had two terms from 1869 to 1877. He gave the country the most corrupt administration it ever had in all its history. He was a fine general, he was personally honest, but a complete failure as President. The politicians led him around by the nose, and got him to give them anything they wanted . In fact, both those generals were babes in the woods when it came to politics. They were set up by the political leaders of the Whig Party and the Republican Party to bamboozle the people. And they used them. It is very interesting to study why and how generals have been chosen as candidates for President. In addition to the two regu- lar generals who were successful, three Regu- lar Army generals have run and been de- feated. In almost every case, the general was nominated by a political party that was hopelessly divided into factions, or on the wrong side of the issues. Political leaders are never willing to let a general have the nomination, if they think their party has a good chance of winning the election on its merits. They want the Presi- dency for themselves. The politicians nominate generals in the hope that military glamor will fool the peo- ple, and keep them from thinking about the issues. There are a lot of examples of this, but I have time only to mention a few. The Whig Party was probably the worst offender in this matter of nominating gen- erals. The Whig Party was the successor of the old Federalist Party, and the ancestor of the Republican Party today. The Whigs were always disunited and divided. They started in the 1820's and about the only thing they could agree on was that they hated Andrew Jackson who was, of course, a Democrat. They were the party that put up Gen. William Henry Harrison in 1840. He was a Regular Army general, but he had also served a good part of his life in civil govern- ment. However, he was picked for his repu- tation as a hero of the wars against the Indians. That was one of the wildest campaigns in our history. That was the "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign. The Whigs never talked about a single issue — they didn't even have a platform, and nobody knew where this general stood on anything, except that he was against the Democrats. They bamboozled the people with the general's glamor and a lot of ballyhoo, and he was elected, but he died almost as soon as he was inaugurated. It worked so well in 1840 that the Whigs tried it again in 1848 with Gen. Zachary Tay- lor. It was the same story then. The Whig Party was hopelessly divided into two fac- tions. They couldn't agree on the issues. And again they had no platform. So they nominated a general who had never cast a vote in his life, and whose views, if he had any, were completely unknown. The Whig Party tried the same stunt in 1852 — just a hundred years ago — but by this time the people were beginning to catch on. In that year the Whigs eliminated all the candidates who had ever taken a position on any issue, and nominated another Mexican War hero, Gen. Winfield Scott. He was 791 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents known as "Old Fuss and Feathers." And the Democrats beat the tar out of him. And that, by the way, was the end of the Whig Party. It fell apart after the election, and soon expired. In 1864 the Democratic Party in the North was in a weak position. They wanted to capitalize on the people's weariness with the Civil War without appearing unpatriotic. So they picked an Army general who hated Lincoln — General McClellan. But he was defeated, and that certainly was a good thing for the country. The Democratic Party in 1864 was a lot like the Republican Party today. The isola- tionist Republicans now want to make an issue out of Korea and our whole policy of checking Communist aggression, without appearing to be unpatriotic. So they are using a general to front for them. That is the way it goes, all through our history. Whenever you see a Regular general as a party's candidate, you know the politi- cians in that party are desperate — that the party is so unpopular or so divided they think they can't win without military glamor. That's exactiy the situation in the Repub- lican Party today. The Republicans haven't won a national election in 20 years. And I hope they don't win for another 20. Their policies are reactionary and out of step with the people. They can't possibly win on domestic issues. And they are hopelessly divided over foreign policy and very bitter at each other. At their convention they were calling each other thieves and robbers. They are a desperate and divided minority party, who can't go before the people and tell them what they really stand for. So they have used the old trick of desperate politicians and picked a Regular Army gen- eral to hide their own miserable record and take the people's minds off the issues. It's an old trick and it isn't going to work this time. Don't let them fool you. It's a good thing to study American his- tory. It helps you to understand what is happening, and to avoid getting fooled. So don't fall this year for one of the oldest political tricks in American history. It is your interests that are at stake. You are the Government. The power of govern- ment, under our Constitution, lies with the people, and the way to exercise that power is by voting in election time. All of you ought to be registered so you can vote and show what you believe in politics, what you want for your own interests, for the interests of this country, and for the welfare of the whole free world. It is necessary for you to inform yourself on the issues. I have gone across this coun- try from one end of it to the other, and I have told the people where the Democratic Party stands, and what the Democratic Party has done for the country. Now the Republicans have not yet stated what they are for. They have only stated that they are against the Democrats. Now, use your judgment. Vote the Democratic ticket on November 4th and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [10.] Hudson, New York (Rear platform, 6:55 p.m.) I appreciate your welcome very much. And you know, another thing I appreciate most highly — I am told that your Republican chairman sent all these people down here so that they could hear a lesson on politics. Now the other day I received a letter from the president of your Student Council at your high school here. He tells me that you are going to have a football game here tonight. I am going to read you his letter, and I am going to answer it. He says, "Dear President Truman: It will indeed be a great honor for us when you stop at Hudson on October 10. It is not often that " I shouldn't say this " a great man such as you stops at our small city. Writing as a representative of 792 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 10 [289] Hudson High I know it would be gready appreciated by the students if in some way you could mention the football game which will be played on the Athletic Field of Hud- son High. Our opponent will be Columbia High School, and the game will start at 8:00 p.m." Wait — wait — the plug hasn't come yet. "Since the turnout at our game has been small, this certainly would stir up the spirit for our team. I realize that you have many worthwhile things to say, and a short time in which to say them, and probably it would be difficult for you to mention the football game. Once again I would like to thank you for your plans to stop at Hudson." Now here is what I am going to tell him. I wish I could stay and see that game, but I am in a very embarrassing position, because it would be impossible for me to take sides. You see, I am out on a political campaign. This is an election year, and I don't want to make anybody mad, unless there is some good reason for it. There is one thing I would like to make a lot of people mad about, and I have good reason for that. I would like to make people mad about the way the Republicans are insulting your in- telligence in this election campaign. Now Governor Stevenson has been tell- ing you about the kind of campaign the Re- publicans are putting on — and so have I. There are a lot of people who won't believe what we tell them about this. They think we are a little prejudiced. So today I want to read you something from another source. If this one is prejudiced at all, it is certainly not in our favor. This is the Wall Street Journal for Friday, September 12. I have it right here. The headline says: "A GOP Gamble. Ike's Tac- ticians Plan To Keep His Talk Vague. They Rely on His Popularity. It's the Old Dewey Pattern With the Big Difference, a Hero Candidate. Appeals to the Ladies and the Kids." Then the story says, "The vagueness of Candidate Eisenhower's campaign pro- nouncements thus far is no accident — nor is it merely a preliminary phase of the Gen- eral's plan for winning. It's part of a cam- paign strategy which his aides aim to con- tinue until election day . . ." Then a little further down the story goes on: "Mr. Eisenhower's campaign planners are well aware of the risk in failing to get down to brass tacks with the voters. They remember" — now this is the Wall Street Journal — "and indeed some of them helped mastermind, the ill-fated campaign of New York's Governor Dewey in 1948. Critics agree that Mr. Dewey's generalities were a big factor in his defeat. But those who are counseling a similar course for Ike take pains to contend that 'Dewey didn't have what the General has — a tremendous reser- voir of good will.' " "Furthermore," says the Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Eisenhower's strategy is dic- tated as much by necessity as by choice, his advisers agree. Even Ike's most ardent ad- mirers say he simply doesn't know enough about the homefront to joust with Mr. Ste- venson"— — or Mr. Truman — — "on many specific issues. 'The General couldn't even pretend to know the answers,' one of his braintrusters asserts. . . . They are . . . relying heavily on nothing more than the General's impact on the people. Especially the Ikemen are pitching their campaign at two big segments of the voting population, the youth and the ladies. The General rarely fails to mention both in his campaign talks." Now that's the end of the quotation from the Wall Street Journal. This is not preju- diced in my favor, I can tell you. And that is not the worst part of the story about the Republican campaign. Even the Wall Street Journal wouldn't tell you the whole story about how the special interest lobbies control the Republican Party. But I think I read enough to show why you ought to be insulted. You know, the General said he was going 793 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents to win this election by appealing to the emotions of the voters, and not to their rea- son. He is not going to talk to you about the issues. Why? This article quotes one of the braintrusters as saying, "The General couldn't even pretend to know the answers." I agree with that. And I don't think that is the kind of man we ought to have for President. These are critical times, my friends, and the Office of the President of the United States is the most important job in the world. This is one place where we need a man who does know the answers. I am proud to say that the Democratic Party offers you a candidate who is that kind of man — Mr. Stevenson. If you have been listening to his speeches, you know that he has a broad grasp of the problems we face today, and a deep understanding of our po- litical institutions. I am urging you — particularly you people here who have the right to vote — to study the issues in this campaign. I want you to study the record. And you have got to get that record out of the Congressional Record, where the Congressmen — Republicans and Democrats — in the Congress fix the policies of the party that is in power. It doesn't do any good to listen to a lot of oratorical hooey unless you know what is being said — unless you know what they are talking about. In order to find that out, you have got to read the record, to see just exactly who has been on the side of the people, and who has not. Now you young people who are here to- night ought to inform yourselves on govern- ment. You ought to do the best you can to find out just exactly what this great Repub- lic means to you. You are the future men and women who will run this country, you young people. I am urging you to get the information that will do you the most good, and make good citizens out of you. And when you do that, you will find that there is one party in this country that is for progress, for looking ahead. There is one party in this country that wants to turn the clock back to 1896. Now you young people can't go back to 1896. Some of you don't even know who was President in 1896. So I advise you to get your information that will do you the most good. Look to your own interests, and look to the future of this great Nation — the greatest free na- tion in the history of the world. There never was a nation equal to this one. This Nation, my friends, is the leader of the free world. We must have people who are looking forward, and not people who are looking back. Now, if that really is what you want, you ought to register and be sure you are on the books — all of you who can vote. And then go to the polls and vote for the man that is taking us forward, not one who doesn't know what the issues are — who is turning the clock back. I urge you in your own inter- ests, go to the polls on the 4th of November, and vote the Democratic ticket. Thank you very much. [n.] Yonkers, New York (Near the train, 9:12 p.m.) I am very glad to be here tonight. I guess you know why I am here. I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, and I have had a good visit with your great Senator Lehman. He gives you the right kind of representation in the Congress. I hope you will send John Cashmore to help him out and to work with Senator Lehman. And I hope you will send the two able Congressmen to the Congress who will be for the people, and not for the special interests. I hope every one of you will vote for our next President — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Adlai Stevenson is the finest young leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt saved the country back in 1933. Like Roosevelt, you can count on him to understand your problems and to work for you. He is a man you can trust. 794 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 10 [289] I have been traveling for nearly 2 weeks now, and I have made more speeches than I can count. And every place I have gone, I have tried to explain to the people what we will all be up against if the Republicans win this election — and God save us from that. I have told them, and I will tell you, if the Republicans succeed in grabbing off the Congress and the White House, you will be saddled with a government you can't trust. The Republicans cannot be trusted with the prosperity of this country. They cannot be trusted with the peace of the world, and that is much more important to you young people. Now, those are strong statements, and I know it. I wouldn't make them if I couldn't back them up. But it happens that they are true. And I will tell you exactly why they are true. In the first place, you can't trust the Republicans because they don't represent you, and they won't work for you. The Re- publican Party is not a party of the plain, everyday people in this country. Instead, it is the roosting place of the big powerful lobbies and the special interest groups. The big banks, the power companies, the oil com- panies, the real estate lobby — and worst of all the China lobby, and the rest of that crew — they are the people who foot the bills for the Republican Party. They pay their money — and they give their orders. They want service in return — and they get it. And they are the only ones who do. The people do not get it. In our country it has become the func- tion of the Democratic Party to represent the people. With us, the people come first. With the Republicans, property and profits come first — way ahead of the people. Now what I say is proved by the Republi- can record in the Congress. It is an Old Guard record, for the Old Guard controls the party with an iron fist. It is a most re- actionary record. It is even further right than Bob Taft — and that is saying a lot. The record shows that a great majority of the Republicans in Congress have voted time after time against social security, against minimum wages, against the Wagner Act, the housing laws — they have voted to ham- string almost all our programs of foreign aid to help build up the strength of this free world. And what have they voted for? Well, they have voted for tax loopholes for the rich. They have voted to curb unions through the Taft-Hartley law. They have voted to riddle and ruin our price controls and rent controls. They have voted to give away our oflfshore oil, in which you have a very deep interest, to raise the price of natural gas, and every other kind of special favor for their lobby friends. If you would like a good example of how they vote the way the lobbies want, I urge you to look at the record of their vice-presi- dential candidate. You have heard some- thing about — my friends, you have heard something about his personal finances, but his voting record is even worse than that — and there aren't very many things that could be worse. As for their presidential candidate, he has shown in recent weeks that while he was a good general, as a politician he is just another Old Guard Republican. Now, ever since that famous breakfast with Senator Taft, the Old Guard has had him surrounded and tied down. In fact, they have had him hog-tied. What is more, he doesn't seem to mind it at all. He actu- ally seems to be more comfortable than when he had the company of Tom Dewey and the other so-called liberal Republicans. Now, my friends, there was a time when I thought the General might make a good President, but his activities in this campaign have shown me that I was entirely wrong. I made a mistake, but I don't want you to make that same mistake. I don't want you to saddle yourselves with big business gov- ernment, or military government, either. I don't want to see our country in the hands 795 [289] Oct. 10 Public Papers of the Presidents of a military man who is surrounded and controlled by the worst elements in the Old Guard Republican Party. Don't fall for this. Don't vote for him. Vote your own interests. You, the people, control this country when you exercise the right of franchise. You are the Government, and the power in this Government is placed in your hands by the greatest document of government that was ever written — the Con- stitution of the United States. It gives you the right to say the kind of government you may have. And if you don't exercise that privilege, if you let election day go by with- out doing your duty as a patriotic citizen by going to vote, and you get bad government, and you get imposed upon by those who are in the Government, you have got nobody to blame but yourselves. I have been from one end of the country to the other and I have explained to the peo- ple just exactly what their rights are, just exactly what they have to do to maintain those rights. And I think they understand exactly what the situation is with which we are faced. I can't get the Republicans to come out and say what they are for. I can't get them to say what sort of government they would like to see in this country. All I can hear from them are smears and boos and attacks when I tell the truth on them. And that hurts a lot worse than if I give them hell — as a lot of people want me to do. They just simply can't stand the facts and the truth. All you have to do is to read the record — some of which I have pointed out to you this evening. Go now — inform yourselves. I am not trying to influence you one way or the other. I want you to vote in your own best inter- ests. And if you inform yourselves, you can't do anything else but vote for the wel- fare of this great Nation. Vote for the welfare of the free nations of this world. Vote for your own private in- terests. And if you do that, you will vote the Democratic ticket on election day — and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [12.] New York City, New York (Grand Central Station, 10:30 p.m.) I am overwhelmed. I am overwhelmed. I can't tell you how very much I appreciate this meeting. I appreciate more than I can tell you what you have done tonight. No man — no man in the world could deserve what you have done here this evening. I have been from one end of the United States to the other, trying to outline what I think is for the welfare of this great Nation of ours. I have been in public office — elec- tive office — for more than 30 years, and I have had that happen to me through the offices of the Democratic Party. On January 20th I shall come to the end of my term as President of the United States — the highest office in the history of the world. And I am trying to show to you what I feel — how grateful I am. The Democratic Party has been exceedingly kind to me. I appreciate what they have done for me. No man in the history of the country has had the experience that I have had. I have gone from precinct to President. No other man in the history of the country has done that. And I am not like these people who accept everything in the world from the party, and then when they arrive at the top want to turn around and become so-called independents and not work for the welfare of the people that have elevated them. I am not that sort. I believe, my friends, that we are faced with the most important election in the history of the country. I am hoping that every single one of you will inform himself on exactly what the issues are. I have stated the issues from the Democratic standpoint, and I am trying to force the Republicans to state their issues — and I don't believe they have any. 796 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 11 [290] Whenever the people know what the facts are, when they know what is best for the country, when they know what is best for their own welfare, I am not worried at all about what they will do. All I am trying to do is to get you to in- form yourselves on the facts. You will have a hard time getting any facts from the Re- publicans— but you can get all you want from me. Now, my friends, if you will inform your- selves on the situation as it is, you can't do but one thing on the 4th day of November. If you want to do what is best for yourselves, what is best for the Nation, and what is best for the free world, you will go to the polls on November the 4th, and you will vote the Democratic ticket, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. note: In the course of his remarks on October 10 the President referred to John Cashmore, Democratic candidate for Senator, Senator Herbert H. Lehman, O. Richard Judson, Victor Kruppenbacher, Arthur B. McGuire, Dr. Charles R. Wilson, and David C. Prince, Democratic candidates for Representative, Mayor Thomas J. Corcoran of Syracuse, and Repre- sentative Leo W. O'Brien, all of New York. The President also referred to Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President, Senators Robert A. Taft of Ohio, William E. Jenner of Indiana, and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, Henry L. Stimson, former Secretary of War, Frank Knox, former Sec- retary of the Navy, Philip C. Jessup, United States Ambassador at Large, and General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-1945- 290 Address in Harlem, New York, Upon Receiving the Franklin Roosevelt Award. October 11, 1952 Dr. Johnson, members of the Interdenomina- tional Ministers Meeting, Mr. Mayor and distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I deeply appreciate the Franklin Delano Roosevelt award you have just given me. I appreciate it all the more because I received the same award here in Dorrance Brooks Park 4 years ago this month. That was an occasion I shall never forget. The deep feeling that poured forth from the hearts of the many thousands of people who were assembled in this park 4 years ago, was one of the most moving experiences of my whole life. Mrs. Truman remarked that it was the greatest and most dignified meeting she had ever attended. That is something for her to say. You, of course, know that Dorrance Brooks Park is named after a very gallant youth who was a private in the Army of the United States. He gave his life for his country in the best American tradition. It is to the credit of the people of this great city of New York that his heroism has been appreciated and acknowledged. That meeting was the high point of the 1948 campaign. I knew then that you had placed your trust in me. We pledged our- selves that day to a great enterprise — the end of racial injustice and unfair discrimination. I am here to say to you now that fight will never cease with me as long as I live. I am very proud of this award. Franklin Roosevelt beat back depression, he led us to victory in war, he gave us the chance to create a world order based on the equal worth and dignity of every individual. It is up to us to make good on the chance he gave us. Today I am winding up a trip across this great country in which I have urged the American people to elect Adlai Stevenson as President. There are a great many reasons why you should do that. The Democratic Party under Adlai Steven- son offers you the best hope of peace in the 55-672—66 797 [290] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents world. The Democratic Party offers you the best protection against depression. And not least, it offers you continued progress toward full civil rights for all Americans. Now, many people have wondered how I came to have such a deep interest in civil rights. I want to tell you about that. Right after World War II, religious and racial in- tolerance began to show up just as it did in 19 19. There were a good many incidents of violence and friction, but two of them in particular made a very deep impression on me. One was when a Negro veteran, still wearing this country's uniform, was arrested, and beaten and blinded. Not long after that, two Negro veterans with their wives lost their lives at the hands of a mob. It is the duty of the State and local govern- ment to prevent such tragedies. But, as President of the United States, I felt I ought to do everything in my power to find what caused such crimes and to root out the causes. It was for that reason that I created the President's Committee on Civil Rights. I asked its members to study the situation and recommend to the whole country what we should do. Their report is one of our great American documents. When it was handed to me, I said that it was a new charter of human free- dom. Five years have passed, but I have never seen anything to make me change my mind. These 5 years have seen some hard fighting by those who believe in civil rights for all our people — women like that great lady, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, men like your own good Senators, Herbert Lehman and Bob Wagner — and the fine Democrats you have sent from New York to the House of Representatives. These 5 years have seen a lot of progress — progress in spite of obstacles that have been placed in our way. I want to review that progress for you today. Right after the Committee on Civil Rights made its report to me, I sent to the Congress a special message making 10 recommenda- tions for new legislation. Only 2 of those 10 recommendations have been approved by the Congress. The opponents of civil rights in the Congress have blocked every effort to enact such important legislation as a fair employment practices law, an antipoll tax law, and an antilynch law. Not only that, they have succeeded in changing the rules under which Congress operates, so as to make it impossible to stop a filibuster. Who are the opponents of civil rights ? All you have to do is to look at the record. Read the Congressional Record, and you'll find them. I sent a good FEPC bill to Congress; but the Republicans introduced the McCon- nell amendment — a toothless substitute for FEPC. And the Republicans in the House voted 2 to 1 for that amendment — beating the Democratic majority that wanted FEPC. The Republicans also introduced and got passed in the Senate the Wherry rule making it next to impossible to stop these filibusters. That is rule 22 that Governor Lehman was talking to you about. It is no accident that these anticivil rights measures bear the names of Republican legis- lators. Republicans introduced them, and Republicans approved them. The Repub- licans deserve this recognition, for they are always on tap to provide just enough votes to insure the defeat of civil rights measures. When the Congress refused to act, I went ahead to do what I could within the execu- tive branch itself. This fight of ours cannot stop just because we have been blocked in the United States Congress. First, I acted to stop racial discrimination in the armed services. The Navy and the Air Force have now eliminated all racial dis- tinctions. And for over 2 years, every sol- dier coming into an Army training unit in this country has been assigned on the basis of his individual merit — regardless of race or color. All the troops in Korea are now inte- grated, and integration is going forward else- where overseas. I also had a Fair Employment Board set up in the Civil Service Commission. Today, every Federal agency has a fair employment practices program that is working. Any Federal employee, or applicant for Federal 798 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 11 [290] employment, who feels he has been dis- criminated against because of race can now ask for and receive justice. At my request, the Solicitor General of the United States went before the Supreme Court to argue that Negro citizens have the right to enter State colleges and universities on ex- actly the same basis as any other citizens. And we won that fight. And more than a thousand Negro graduate and professional students have been accepted by 10 State uni- versities that had barred their doors to Negroes before. This means that this country will have more men like Louis T. Wright and Ralph Bunche. At my request, the Solicitor General again v/ent before the Supreme Court and argued against the vicious, restrictive covenants that had prevented houses in many places from being sold to Negroes and to Jews. It was a great day in the history of civil rights when we won that case, also, before the Supreme Court. As one result of that decision, more Ne- groes are homeowners today than ever be- fore in American history. Our locally-operated public housing proj- ects are increasingly open to families of all races and creeds. The number of integrated projects has increased eightfold in 8 years. In the last few years, 9 States and 8 cities have forbidden discrimination or segregation in public housing. In the last few years, 11 States and 20 cities have enacted fair employment practice laws. This is where the greatest gap exists in our Federal laws on civil rights, and I have repeatedly urged the Congress to pass the kind of law we need. Such a statute must have enforcement powers if it is to mean anything. To talk about voluntary compliance with fair employment practice is just plain nonsense. Federal fair employ- ment legislation with enforcement power is greatly needed and it ought to be on the books. And I am going to keep fighting for it, come hell or high water! Progress has been made in assuring Ne- groes the opportunity to exercise their right to vote as citizens. The courts have made the infamous "white primary" a thing of the past. Thank God for that. And there are only five poll tax States left in this Union. Nevertheless, we still need laws to abolish the poll tax and otherwise protect the right to vote where intimidation or restrictions still exist. In the last Rvg years, two States have en- acted antilynch laws. Five States and forty- five cities have passed laws against wearing masks in public — which will strip the hoods off the Ku Klux Klan. One of the finest things that has happened recently was the conviction and prosecution of those Ku Kluxers down in North Carolina and South- ern States. This is splendid progress in the fight to guarantee our citizens protection against mob violence, but it is not enough. It is the clear duty of the Federal Govern- ment to stand behind local law enforcement agencies, and to step in if they fail to control mob action. That is exactly what we have been doing through the FBI and through the civil rights section of the Department of Justice. Last year, a mob formed in Cicero, Illi- nois, and prevented a Negro veteran and his family from moving into an apartment house. Fortunately, Illinois was blessed with a great Governor, who is now your Demo- cratic candidate for President. Governor Stevenson, who believes in ac- tion in these matters, restored law and or- der with the National Guard. But a local grand jury did the incredible thing of indict- ing— not the ringleaders of the mob — but the Negro veteran's lawyer and the property owner. At this point the Federal Govern- ment stepped in to prevent a gross miscar- riage of justice. It obtained an indictment of the city officials who had failed in their duty to assure equal justice under the law. And the officials who had abetted the mob were tried and convicted in a Federal Court. It was also last year that the Nation was shocked by the bomb murder in Florida of Harry T. Moore and his wife. These tragic deaths came shortly after the bombings of 799 [290] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents synagogues and Catholic churches and of the housing project at Carver Village. For several months the FBI has been gathering evidence on the mobs responsible for these outrages. And this week the United States Government began to present that evidence to a Federal grand jury at Miami. These are examples of how your Federal Government — under a Democratic Presi- dent— stands behind the constitutional guar- antees of human rights. The Federal Gov- ernment could do a better job if we had stronger civil rights laws — and we must never let down in fighting for those laws. Now, the progress we have been making in the field of human rights is in grave dan- ger. Make no mistake about that. We are menaced by the forces of reaction which would have our Government turn its back upon the common man. These forces of reaction are organized in the Republican Party. They would have our Government cease to be what it has been for 20 years, under the Democrats — the protector of the weak against the mighty. And these policies, as sure as you are standing here, would lead us back to the dark days of the depression — and depression is always a breeder of hate among human beings. You and I are not going to let this hap- pen. We are not going to turn the clock back. We are not going to turn the coun- try over to the greedy interests that control the Republican Party. They're not interested in equal rights. Now remember this. One person in this country has to think of all the people all the time; that person is the President of the United States. If you want this civil rights program to continue, you must make the right man President this year. Now every special interest in the United States has a highly paid lobby at Washing- ton who spend their time banqueting the legislators and trying to force legislation through for the special interests. And the only lobbyist that the 150 million people have who can't afford to hire one, is the President of the United States. Now on the one hand, there is the Re- publican candidate for President. He is the front man for the party that adopted the Wherry rule in the Senate — making it harder to stop a filibuster than at any time in history. His party is the one that produced a watered-down version of the FEPC in the House— and would not permit even that ver- sion to come to a vote in the Senate. His is the party that beat a retreat this year in the civil rights plank of its platform. That's the lousiest platform you ever read on the subject. And while the Republican candidate was in uniform, he told the Armed Services Committee of the Senate that a certain amount of segregation is necessary in the Army. You and I know that this is morally wrong. And what's more, it's even mili- tarily wrong. Our troops in Korea are demonstrating, every day, that Americans can stand side by side, regardless of color, and fight better because of it. Now, the Republican candidate, and his party, and his party's platform have refused to pledge effective action for assuring equal rights for all our citizens. You could not even depend on them to save what we have now — and goodness knows that isn't enough. And now, while the Republican candi- date is whispering promises to you, he has been touring the South to woo the Dixie- crats into the Republican fold. What do you think the Republican candidate and a Dixie- crat Governor talk about when they sit down together for lunch? Do you think they talk about civil rights? I think maybe they talk about taking them away. You can draw your own conclusion when the Dixiecrat Governor announces, after the lunch, he's going to vote Republican this year. I am afraid, my friends, that the Repub- lican candidate does not offer you much hope so far as civil rights are concerned. 800 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 11 [290] On the other hand, there is the Demo- cratic Party — the party of proven perform- ance. This is the party that has taken the great forward steps I have just described — the greatest since the abolition of slavery. The Democratic platform this year con- tains the strongest civil rights plank ever adopted by any political party in this coun- try. Our candidates have taken their stand firmly on that platform. You can count on them to fight to carry it out. You placed your trust in me 4 years ago when I dedicated myself to our great cause, and I have tried not to let you down. I am here today to tell you that you can place the same trust in the Democratic candidates in this election year. And I assure you with all the sincerity I have, that they will fulfill your trust in exactly the same way. Adlai Stevenson has shown by everything he has done and said that he believes deeply in the equality of human beings. He will bring new courage and new energy to the fight for civil rights. He has the courage to say the same things about civil rights in New York and in Rich- mond, Virginia. He has been a great civil rights Governor and he will make a great civil rights President. Let me tell you some of the things he has done. When he gave his inaugural address as Governor in 1949, he listed the matters he wanted the Illinois Legislature to take up. High on that list was an FEPC. But Adlai Stevenson was not asking for the toothless kind of FEPC, so you can imagine what hap- pened to his request. It passed the Demo- cratic house only to be killed by that Illinois Republican senate. In the following ses- sion, both houses of the Illinois Legislature were Republican controlled. That year, the house bill died in committee. But get this one. This is really a good one. The Repub- lican controlled senate committee reported out Adlai Stevenson's FEPC, but they brought it out with a recommendation that it not be passed. That is an example of the same kind of Republican doubletalk we get in Washing- ton all the time. Now let me tell you some other things about Stevenson, and what he did. He didn't make a lot of noise about them. He just quietly issued an executive order ending segregation in the Illinois National Guard. And he issued another executive order tak- ing race out of the Illinois Employment Service forms. And it was during his ad- ministration that segregation was finally wiped out in the Illinois public schools. Now I think some of our generals could take les- sons from him in how to get things done. Adlai Stevenson also helped make it pos- sible for Negro sailors to have duties other than as messmen. That was during the war when he was Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. You people know that if there is one thing I have fought for as President of the United States, it has been the protection of the God- given rights of every citizen of this great country. I solemnly pledged myself to that task at a meeting like this 4 years ago. To- day, I have listed some of the things we have accomplished in the great fight. And Adlai Stevenson has shown by his record that he will continue the fight with renewed vigor. Now, it's not enough to nod your heads in agreement when we talk about this fight we have been making together. You must go to the polls in such numbers that you can defeat the forces of reaction. You have until 10:30 tonight to register. And you are not worth a hoot to the Democratic Party unless you are registered. Make sure your name is on the books — and that your friends' and neighbors' names are on the books — by the time those books close tonight. And on November 4, let's roll up a great majority for Adlai Stevenson and a Democratic Congress and we will support him in his battle for civil rights. note: The President spoke at 2 p.m. in Dorrance Brooks Park. In his opening words he referred to 801 [290] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents Dr. C. Asapansa-Johnson, president of the Inter- denominational Ministers Alliance, who presented him with the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Brotherhood Medal, and Mayor Vincent R. Impel- litteri of New York City. Later he referred to Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, Senators Herbert H. Lehman and Robert F. Wagner of New York, Louis T. Wright, president of the medical board at Harlem Hospital, and Ralph J. Bunche, U.S. delegate to the United Nations. He also referred to Harry T. Moore of Mims, Fla, NAACP coordinator for the State of Florida, who was killed by a bomb blast in his home, and to Mrs. Moore, who died later from injuries sustained from the blast. For the President's address upon receiving the award on October 29, 1948, see 1948 volume, this series, Item 265. 291 Address at a Columbus Day Dinner in New York City. October n, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, distinguished guests: I am highly pleased to be here tonight and before I start on my regular address, I want to say to you that I don't think I have enjoyed organ music any more than I did the music put out by your great organ- ist here tonight. He really played things worthwhile. I am exceedingly happy that Mr. Pope informs me that this is a non- partisan organization. I am on a partisan trip, and I fear very much I am going to make you a partisan speech, so if you want to throw me out, now is the time to do it. You know, I have been in elective public office for 30 years this November — this com- ing November I will have been in elective public office 30 years. I have had every honor that the Democratic Party can give to a man. On the 20th day of January I shall retire from public office, but I shall not re- tire from activity — be sure of that. I am not like some politicians who get everything they possibly can out of a party and then become nonpartisan and high-grade inde- pendents. I am a Democrat and will be that all my life. I am glad to be here in New York, par- ticularly on an occasion like this, when we are meeting to honor the vision, enterprise, and faith of Christopher Columbus. Those qualities in that great explorer opened the door to a new world. Columbus had some very positive ideas, and he was willing to back them up. He was sure the shape of the earth was round, and he made a trip to prove it. Like Columbus, I have had some positive ideas of my own. And also like Columbus, I have been making a trip to prove one of them. That was an idea I had about the shape this country is in. I can report to you now on what I dis- covered. This country is in very good shape — very good indeed. I am glad I had a chance to see this for myself. For I was beginning to fear, from the Republican campaign oratory which is filling the air these days, that the country was in terrible shape. If these Republican orators had been liv- ing in Columbus' time, I'm sure they would have been among those who believed the world was flat. In fact, I'm not altogether certain what their views may be on that subject even now. I'm not going to tell you that Columbus would be a Democrat if he were alive these days, although I can't see why he wouldn't be. But I do know that if he could have traveled with me these past 2 weeks, he'd feel very proud of this wonderful country of ours. I have been through our cities and across our great plains and mountains, to the Pa- cific and back; and I can assure you that this is a very prosperous country. It is strong and industrious and thriving. And when we think about what our Na- 802 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 11 [291] tion is doing, around the world, for the cause of freedom and peace, we can be sure of something else. This is a brave and gener- ous country. In this time of trouble and upheaval, this country of ours is the hope of the world. I am proud that this country has reached its present position of prosperity and world responsibility under the leadership of my party and my administration. I am proud that my party rescued this Nation from the black despair of the de- pression, 20 years ago. I am prouder still that we have helped our economy to grow and expand ever since. Never have we enjoyed so long a period of such prosperity and growth. The Com- munists have been waiting these past 20 years for that final economic collapse which, in their warped philosophy, is the inevitable end of all capitalist countries. The Repub- licans have also been expecting another de- pression that might give them a chance to get elected. But in this respect, both the Republicans and the Communists have been disappointed. We are not going to have that depression, because we know, now, how to keep our country strong and prosperous. The answer lies in the policies we have put into effect — policies that promote the welfare of all the people. We have made our agriculture strong through such programs as price supports and soil conservation. We have helped our peo- ple by protecting the right of labor to or- ganize, and by minimum wage and social insurance laws. We have tapped the great resources of the West through Government- built power dams and irrigation projects. We have held the ups and downs of the economic cycle in line through a sound banking system, and controls over credit, and a flexible program of public works. All these things have encouraged the expansion of business, both large and small. We have established the rule that no one group is entitled to dominate the whole economy, the way a little band of economic royalists did in the 1920's. They ran it for their own private profit. Now, it's a curious thing, but during all these 20 years — while we have been putting this country on the firmest basis it has ever known — the head of the Democratic Party has been the object of a continual stream of abuse. The special interest lobbies have never lagged in their zeal. They have not even bothered to change their accusations. Franklin D. Roosevelt was called a dicta- tor. So was I. He was called a weakling. So was I. He was accused of being boss- ridden, corrupt, surrounded by a palace guard, of being a Socialist, of fostering com- munism, of weakening private enterprise, of lowering public morals. I am accused of exactly the very same things. Both he and I, of course, have had our fair share of human frailty and error. But I suspect the real crime is that we were both successful in working for the people, and keeping the country with all its great re- sources and opportunities, for the people — for their enjoyment and that of their chil- dren— and keeping it out of the hands of the powerful few. Now, on the 20th day of next January, I expect to welcome a new man to this com- pany of much abused Chief Executives — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I predict that he will be just as much slandered and maligned as his predecessors, because I am sure that he is devoted to the cause of the people. But I have this comforting thought for him. The hatchetmen among the lobbyists and the one-party press might just as well save their breath and their ink and their paper. When I go around the country, as I have been doing lately, the people do not shun me. They do not look for a monster with horns and tail. On the contrary, they seem very friendly, and very glad to see me, believe it or not. The truth is, you can't fool the people. They know what is going on. And as a consequence, the opposition party always finds itself in a dilemma, every 4 803 [291] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents years. The Republican, Party starts the race in these election campaigns, under the banner of "Down with Socialism." And then, in the home stretch, they switch to the slogan of "Me, too!" The switch for this year is already underway. It has only been a few weeks since the Re- publican candidate met with Senator Taft up here in Morningside Heights to learn what his "great crusade" was all about. Senator Taft explained to him that it was a crusade against "creeping socialization." Now this is a perfectly safe thing for the Republicans to be against, but when they are called on to explain what they mean, it be- gins to get a little awkward for them. Are they against Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal and all our works, or aren't they? Of course, a great many of them are, but you would be sur- prised at how this question can embarrass them. They can't admit we've done any- thing good — for obvious reasons. On the other hand, and for equally obvious reasons, it is difficult for the Republicans to pro- claim their opposition to all the programs we have put into effect for helping the workers, the farmers, and the businessmen, and all the rest. So, you see, part of this great game of poli- tics, every 4 years, is for us to try to pin the Republicans down as to what they mean by "creeping socialism," and for them to try to avoid being pinned down. It's a great game. This is an argument in which the Democrats have all the advantage — because the record of accomplishment is on our side. We just say to the Republicans: "Now you are against the New Deal and the Fair Deal and all their works, so will you kindly tell us and the American people just which one of our programs you want to repeal." Of course, they can't admit that they want to repeal any of them. So, as they are pinned down, issue by issue, they begin to say: "We're not really opposed to that— we are in favor of it." And pretty soon they begin trying to claim credit for having started the thing in the first place. This is called "Me- tooism" — that is the definition of it. The whole process might also be called trying to have it both ways at the same time. At any rate, that is now going on. Just a few days ago Senator Taft, who has written the marching orders for the "great crusade," followed me on a platform in Shenandoah, Iowa. There he said, in a rather angry fashion, that he and his party were not against those things we had been doing for the farmer at all, and how could anybody have gotten that idea ? And the so- called Republican "truth squad," who have been limping around in my wake, explained recently, in Denver, that when it came to farmers and reclamation, the Republican 80th Congress had done more for "creep- ing socialism" than the Democrats ever did. Now can you beat that one ? I can't. I wonder if Columbus ever had a truth squad following him around, shouting at the top of his voice: "The world is flat, I tell you. The world is flat." Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent, who has much to learn about these things, has begun to catch on to this busi- ness of "Me-tooism." He has been against Federal aid to education, against social security — no better than prison, he called it. He is against Federal action in the field of health. But in a speech in Los Angeles just the other day, he said he was for ex- tending social security, a little bit. He said he is for Federal aid to education, just a little bit. He is for aid for medical care, just a little bit. I can give him a piece of advice. He need not be so timid. The special interest lobbies won't bite him. Now this is the time in the campaign when the special interest lobbies get the daylights scared out of them — that their candidate will lose. So they'll let him say anything if it will get votes — just so long as he agrees to do what they want after he gets in. "Me, too" is all right now — this is nearly the middle of October. But I doubt that the Republicans can fool 804 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 11 [291] the people with any such acts of deathbed repentance. The people can tell where the Republicans really stand by looking at the record. That is all they need to do. And that record is clearly against the people. It is a terrible record, if you will just study it. This is the fix the Republicans have gotten themselves into in domestic policy. Now let us see where the Republicans and their candidate stand on foreign policy. There was a time when I thought I knew. There was a time, during the life of Sena- tor Vandenberg, when one wing of the Re- publican Party joined with the Democrats to strengthen our allies abroad against com- munism. They did more than make speeches then. They voted for a free world. There was a time when the man who is now the Republican candidate played a great part in strengthening and unifying the de- fense of Europe. I thought his heart was in it. But I have been astonished and sad- dened since he became a candidate, that he has never seen fit to reaffirm the specific programs of military and economic aid to our allies in the free world — programs in which he played so vital a part. The only specific suggestion he has made about these pro- grams is to propose violent cuts in money spent for our defense and to help strengthen our allies. Now this is a new kind of isolationism. The old isolationism was to say that the United States was surrounded by an ocean moat that no enemy could cross. The new approach is to say: Yes, we are part of the world — but not if it costs any money. So, we have the Republican candidate, on the one hand, who says that isolationism is dead but then sneers at the joint efforts we are undertaking with our allies. And on the other hand, we have all the diehard Senators he has endorsed for reelection, who still op- pose the North Atlantic Treaty and the mutual security program — and want Amer- ica to withdraw behind the moat. Through all these isolationists runs a deep distrust of foreign nations and the foreign born. These men have turned their backs on the brave progress that the free countries of Europe have made with our assistance. As for the Republican candidate himself, what has become of the convictions that he held — a few short months ago — when the free nations of Europe looked to him as a symbol of their unity against the Kremlin menace? He was in Europe as commander of the forces of the North Atlantic Treaty countries. I sent him there. It was his job to try to unify those forces, and to stimulate those countries to defend themselves from Communist imperialism. Now I thought that mission was a success. At least, that was what I believed until a few days ago, when the Republican candi- date made a speech attacking our foreign policy. In that speech, he said that our efforts to bring about greater unity in Europe have been failures. If that is true, then his mission to Europe was a failure. This surprised me so much that I went back to the report he had made on the period of his service as head of the North Atlantic Treaty forces. This report points out the difficulties we all know, and the work that still has to be done to make Europe secure, but it doesn't suggest anywhere that our policy in Europe is a failure. In fact, he says we are on the right track. Let me read to you from his report. He says, "We have made progress in all aspects of security." And later on he says, "The tide has begun to flow our way and the situa- tion of the free world is brighter than it was a year ago." If he really believed our policy in Europe was one of failure, it was his plain duty to tell us so when he returned from Europe, and not wait 6 months to put into a politi- cal speech. Now let me tell you something. This talk about our European policy being a failure is just straight isolationist talk. It is part of the propaganda of the isolationist Republicans. What we have really done in Europe, is to 805 [291] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents save the home of Western civilization from enslavement by a godless creed. The free nations of Europe are a shining example of what our leadership can mean. These great countries have more than strategic value. They are important to us as centers from which our culture springs, and to them we are bound by deep ties of ancestry. A great church to which many Americans belong, has its center in Europe — in Rome. All Americans can take pride in what we have done to save Western Europe from communism. Our aid to Europe is not only a Govern- ment affair. One of our greatest accom- plishments was carried out by private citi- zens, as a personal effort. That was the campaign of letters from our citizens to their friends and kinfolk in Italy, at the time of the Italian election in 1948. Many of you in this room took an important part in that effort. It helped to turn the tide against communism in Italy, and throughout Europe. Just think where we would be now if we had listened to the defeatist talk of the iso- lationists in 1947, who said that Europe was not worth saving. There is more that the people of this country can do in the struggle to strengthen and protect the free countries of Europe. Among other things, we would like to welcome more of the people of Europe to our shores, as immigrants and prospective citizens. As a Nation we can use those peo- ple in our expanding national economy. As Americans we would like to help provide new homes for refugees from communism, who manage to escape from behind the Iron Curtain. We would like to find new oppor- tunities for many families in the overpopu- lated countries of free Europe — like Italy and the Netherlands and Greece. These are things the Democratic Party wants to do and will fight for with every means at its command. We are held back now by a rigid immigra- tion law, passed years ago by a Republican Congress and a Republican President. That law places a stigma of unworthiness on peo- ple from the countries of eastern and south- ern Europe. It holds them to be less desir- able than the northern Europeans. Yet it is those very people of southern and eastern Europe who are on the battle- front in the struggle against Communist sub- version and Communist oppression. Their continuing resistance, their spirit in the fight, is of critical importance to the cause of freedom. These are the people, today, to whom we should be most grateful. Yet the discrimination in our immigration laws makes it impossible for us to give them the welcome and the refuge we want to provide. The discrimination in our immigration laws is an insult to these people and an injury to the free world. I tried to get that old law changed. And so did your great Senator from this State, Senator Lehman. A coalition of Republi- cans and a few Democrats blocked us. In- deed, they even made the old law worse, in a new one, passed over my veto, just this year. It's true that this new law bears the name of a Democrat, Pat McCarran, but he's not my kind of Democrat. The Democratic Party is not going to give up on this issue. We are pledged by our platform to remove discriminations from our immigration laws. The McCarran Act must go. And I want to say right here that the Republican candidate for Vice President voted against opening our gates to more of the brave people of eastern and southern Europe, and the Democratic candidate for Vice President voted for it. The Republican platform and the Repub- lican candidate for President have nothing to say about this issue. Their silence speaks louder than words. But, perhaps, in the course of this cam- paign we may be able to smoke the Repub- lican candidate out — as we are doing on some of the domestic issues. We are already having enough success along this line to make it worth a try. Originally, the Republicans had the idea that their candidate could get by without 806 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 11 [291] taking a positive stand on any of the issues. The theory was that he should talk about leadership — without exercising any. But to their surprise the Republicans have found that the people want to know where their candidate stands on some of the specific things that concern the people. That ac- counts for his feeble expression of views on health and education in Los Angeles the other day. We have been able to make him admit, at last, that he played a part, as Chief of Staff, in some of the foreign policy decisions for which he is loudly criticizing the civilian side of our Government now. Perhaps, as we go along, we may be able to make him confess that he had a part in our policy to strengthen and defend Eu- rope— a policy that is so distasteful to his iso- lationist managers. Maybe we can even get him to admit that policy is a success and not a failure. But I do not entertain hope any longer, that we shall be able to get him to repudiate his two new associates — the isolationist char- acter assassins, Jenner and McCarthy — the very men who tried to destroy the reputation of Ike's greatest benefactor — that great tried and true patriot — George C. Marshall. Neither do I suppose that we can persuade him to disown the use of their tactics by his running mate. That would be too much to expect. He is in this thing too deep now to scramble back to a position of decency and honor. Fortunately — very fortunately — the Amer- ican people have a happy alternative to this bankrupt Republican campaign and its cap- tive candidate. Because the Democratic Party has as its candidate one of the most highly gifted men ever to make his appear- ance in our political life. This Nation is too mature and too wise to reject the leadership and character of Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. His courage, his decency, his wide grasp of our problems have already been demonstrated in this campaign. There is one aspect of his career that I think I should emphasize before this audience celebrating Columbus Day. In the dark winter of 1943, when Italy lay divided, with the German troops on the Rapido, and the Allies in Naples, Adlai Stevenson was sent by President Roosevelt to survey the condi- tions and problems of the Italian people in the liberated zone. He found them without transport, without enough food and fuel, and suffering under a terrible inflation. Yet in spite of their misery, he recognized in the Italian people their underlying courage, their hope, their eagerness to help the allied cause. He rec- ommended that they be treated not as former enemies but as valuable and useful coworkers in the fight for freedom. He urged that they be given not relief but the supplies they needed to help themselves — to rebuild their industries, and to do their part in helping win the war against tyranny. Adlai Stevenson's plans for what ought to be done in Italy contained the seeds that eventually flowered into the Marshall plan for the defense of Europe against commu- nism. It was a vision characteristic of his whole approach to public problems — the vision of a man who looks beneath the slogans, beneath the surface, into the hearts of people, and finds there the guide to action. With this kind of leadership, the Demo- cratic Party is proving, once again, that it is the party of growth and progress. With this new leadership, the Democratic Party proclaims again that it is the party of peace- ful and forward-moving change. Our past achievements are consistent with our platform and the record of our candidate. And in the Democratic Party the great forces of heart and mind that have moved the American people steadily forward for 20 years are marching ahead, again, to victory. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 10:05 P-m. in the Waldorf Astoria Hotel at New York City. In his opening words he referred to Fortune Pope, chair- man of the meeting, and Mayor Vincent R. Impel- litteri of New York City. He also referred to Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan, 1 928-1 951, Senators Robert 807 [291] Oct. 11 Public Papers of the Presidents A. Taft of Ohio, Herbert H. Lehman of New York, Pat McCarran of Nevada, William E. Jenner of Indiana, and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 193 9-1 945. The dinner was sponsored by the Columbus Day Citizens Committee and the city of New York. 292 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. October 16, 1952 [1.] North Haven, Connecticut (North Haven Green, 9 a.m.) It is nice of you to come to meet me at this time of the morning. Although I am an early riser, the minority do not get up as early as I do. I believe you have some inkling of why I am here. I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. I have been told that this city of yours is sometimes considered a suburb of New Haven. Well now, I live in a town in Missouri that Kan- sas City tries to call a suburb. But we were there first, just as you were, and the suburbs are around the other way — New Haven is a suburb of this town, and Kan- sas City is a suburb of Independence. They don't like to be told that. You have a fine slate of Democratic candi- dates here in Connecticut. I think the world of Bill Benton and Abe Ribicoff. We need them both in the Senate. I don't like to say too much about the Senate because I served 10 years there myself, but if I were to ex- press my opinion they would say I was throwing bouquets at myself. You need John McGuire and Stanley Pribyson in the House to give Connecticut good representa- tion. I am working hard in this campaign be- cause I think it is the most important elec- tion in many, many years. The choice the people make this year may decide whether we have prosperity or depression, war or peace. The whole future of our country is wrapped up in the decision next November the 4th. Peace is the most important of all. It is the thing I have been working for with all my heart these past 7 years. I am sure we are on the right road to attain the peace. I am sure we can attain that goal, provided we have the kind of government that will work calmly and steadily no matter what the obstacles may be in the years ahead. That is the kind of government we will have in this country if Adlai Stevenson is elected President next November. He is a man of peace. He is a civilian with much experience in government — with a real un- derstanding of our political system and the needs of the plain, everyday people in this country and all over the world. During the war, President Roosevelt sent him to Italy to find out how we could best help the people of that great country rebuild their economy and aid in the struggle against the Nazis. After the war, Adlai Stevenson helped gready in the task of setting up the United Nations. And now for 4 years past he has been Governor of one of our great States — Illinois. He has given his State a real progressive government — a government for the people. He is a man we can trust. If you have been listening to his speeches you know that he has met the great issues of our domestic policy and our foreign policy wisely and frankly. And I want to say this to you. He doesn't make one kind of policy speech up here in Connecticut and another kind of policy speech in Virginia or North Carolina or some other Southern State. His speeches are right down the line. What he says he means, and he means it for the whole 48 States and not just throwing out bait hooks to try and get votes. He is for the welfare and benefit of 808 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] all of them. You had better watch this thing very carefully when you go to the polls on the 4th. Now, on the other side we have the Re- publican candidate for President. He is a general. He is a very great general. I be- lieve he is a very great general because I appointed him to two of the most important military posts in the Government of the United States. But that does not necessarily qualify him to be a good President in the years ahead. Of course he wants peace as much as the rest of us. Nobody wants war. But in this struggle for peace we have to have more than good intentions. Military life is good training for war and preparation for war. It is not training in the ways of preventing a war. Running an army has very little in common with running the Government. The President of the United States makes the policies of this country that can lead to either peace or war. We must be care- ful to get the right kind of man in that job. No man can promise you peace with abso- lute certainty, and I know what I am talk- ing about, but I can say to you that I be- lieve with all my heart, our best hopes for peace lie in the election of Adlai Stevenson to the Presidency. Now I want you to do a little thinking. I am going to ask you to use your head. Study history a little bit. Think of the wel- fare of the world as a whole. You know, we have been shoved into world leadership — we were shoved into a world leadership which we should have assumed back in 1920, and we didn't have the nerve or the stability to do it. And now, whether we like it or not, we are the most powerful nation in the his- tory of the world. And the most important office in the history of the world is the Presi- dency of the United States. I want you to think about your own wel- fare. Think about the welfare of this great Nation. Think about the welfare of the world as a whole, for that is our responsi- bility. The free world is looking to us to carry on for the welfare of all the people in the world. Every time the President makes a decision, it sometimes affects as many as a billion people. That is a respon- sibility that is yours, because you are the Government of the United States. And when you go to the polls on November the 4th you either keep this country in the right groove or you may send it into the most dis- astrous war in the history of the world. Think of that now, and vote for your own interests. Vote the Democratic ticket on the 4th. [2.] Wallingford, Connecticut (Lyman Hall High School, 9:25 a.m.) This is a wonderful valley I have been go- ing through. The drive has been beautiful. This is a fine time of year to come to your great State of Connecticut. But, I guess that you know I am not here to look at the scenery — beautiful as it is. I am here campaigning for the Democratic ticket. You have a wonderful group of Demo- crats running for office here in Connecticut, and I hope you will vote for all of them. For Senator, Bill Benton. He is one of the hardest fighters in America for your interests. He always is for what is right, and he never dodges tough questions. You know where Bill stands on everything. For Senator, Abe Ribicoff. It will take a real man, a fellow with a big heart and a big understanding of this whole world, to fill the shoes of Brien McMahon. But Abe has shown by his fine, constructive record in Congress that he is the best qualified man for that place. Then for Congress you have John McGuire and Stanley Pribyson — I see he has some friends here. Well, I hope you will not just be clapping for him, I wish you would go and vote for him. For our national ticket I think every day that passes makes it clearer that we must elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Governor Stevenson is demonstrating day after day that he has the qualities of integrity 809 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents and courage and wisdom — which we need in the Presidency. I understand that he went to school right here in Wallingford. Per- haps that is one of the reasons he has a real New England conscience — and that is a tough conscience. I know, because I have been associated with a lot of them. And they have tough consciences — those consciences make them do right. I must say I have rarely met a man who is so fairminded and conscientious. He is really talking sense to the American people — in the best tradition of good, New England, town meeting democracy. I hope you have all been listening to Gov- ernor Stevenson's speeches. I hope you will be able to see him and hear him when he comes back here to Connecticut. If you do, you will get a real discussion of the facts and the issues involved in this campaign. And that is something you will never get from the other side. Adlai Stevenson has had just the right background of experience for this tremen- dous job. The Presidential job now has be- come the greatest job in the history of the world, and you must have a man to fill it who has a conscience and who understands world affairs, who understands the affairs of the United States, and who has a heart in his breast that thinks of the people. The Governor has been Governor of Illi- nois, and that is wonderful experience for the Presidency, because he will have the same kind of problems to deal with as the Presi- dent as he has had to deal with as Governor. They will be on a larger scale, of course. Governor Stevenson has also had wide experience in national and international af- fairs. During the war he was the right- hand man to the Secretary of the Navy. Then in 1943 President Roosevelt sent him to Italy to study conditions there and recom- mend the policies we should follow. Steven- son recommended a plan that would put Italy back on her feet and keep her out of the hands of the Communists. That plan he worked out was the forerunner of what later was turned into the Marshall plan that saved the free world in Europe. After the war was over, Governor Steven- son played a very important part in helping set up the United Nations. Twice he repre- sented us at the General Assembly, and he did an outstanding job. I am sure you can see from what I have told you why the Democratic Party is proud of its candidate for President. He is a man of real principle,, with the right kind of experience for the job. I wish I could say as much for the Repub- lican candidate. But in all honesty, I can't. He was a very good general, but unfortu- nately he hasn't had the proper experience for political office. He has been in the Army 40 years, and that is a very different type of occupation. Now let me give you an analysis. Sup- pose, instead of appointing General Eisen- hower, who at the time was our most experienced general, to command the forces which were being organized to keep the world free, I had appointed the mayor of my hometown to that job, it would have made just as much sense as for the Republicans to nominate a general to run this country. If you will study our history, you will find that we have never had but two regular professional generals for President, and neither one of them was able to handle the job. Every day the Republican candidate is giving us new proof of why that is true. The General is just no match for professional politicians. He has let the Old Guard Re- publicans take him into camp, and Sen- ator Taft has become the real commander of the General's campaign. Frankly, I am afraid of a professional soldier who lets Sen- ator Taft run over him and then embraces all the worst elements in the reactionary and isolationist wing of the Republican Party. I think you people up here in New Eng- land should think that over carefully. The Taft brand of Republicanism won't do you any good up here, and it won't do the coun- try any good, or the peace of the world, 810 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] either. And I am talking from the heart, because I know what I am talking about. I haven't been in the Congress, and I haven't been in the Senate of the United States, and I haven't been President of the United States for 7 years for nothing. I know what I am talking about. When you go to the polls in November, think of your own interests. You are the Government. Vote for the kind of gov- ernment that will be in your interests, the kind of government that will be for the welfare of this the greatest Nation in all history, the kind of government that under- stands world affairs. If you do that, you can't help but vote for Adlai Stevenson. Thank you a lot. [3.] Meriden, Connecticut (Crown Square, 9:55 a.m.) I appreciate very much this most cordial welcome from this great "Silver City." You know, in the West they have three things that they are most interested in, and that is sheep, sugar, and silver. I understand that the sheep you have here is in the form of a lamb chop, and the sugar you get from Cuba, but you are still a silver city, because you take all that silver and work it up. And I have got some of it, too. Frank Maloney, your former mayor and Senator was a great personal friend of mine, and I have been most happy to see Mrs. Maloney this morning, and Senator Ma- loney's son and grandson. The grandson had a ride with me, and I told his father if he didn't look out, I would take him home with me. You people ought to be proud of Frank Maloney. He was one of the great Senators of the United States. I served a long time with him in the Senate. I guess if you haven't already found out, maybe I had better tell you why I am here today. I am out campaigning for a Demo- cratic victory this November. I don't want to say it under any false pretenses, so I thought you had better know that I am working at one of my five jobs. I am work- ing as the head of the Democratic Party, to see that we get a Democratic ticket elected this fall. Now, Connecticut has a great ticket to offer you — Abe Ribicoff and Bill Benton for the Senate, John McGuire for Congressman. You can't do better than to send those people to Congress. That is the sort of people we need down there for the welfare of this country. As for our national ticket, Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, these two men are two of the best qualified candidates any party ever offered the country. They are good men, and on top of that, they are good Demo- crats. They couldn't be good Democrats unless they were good men. They under- stand the people's interests. You can trust them all the way. I have been traveling all across the coun- try, trying to explain to the people the real issues in this election. One of the big issues is whether the Federal Government is going to assume any responsibility for the welfare of the working men and women of this country. Our party believes that the Government should assume some responsibility. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is in- clined to leave everything to big business, and hope for the best — and that hope never comes out. I don't know any better illustration than the way our two parties stand on the question of keeping full employment in this country. The Democrats are pledged to keep employ- ment high. We have that pledge in our party platform, and our record shows that we mean it. We have got this country out of the worst depression in history, and for the first time in history we have kept the country out of a depression after a big war. That was in 1946. Then when times threatened to get tough, in 1949, we worked hard to reverse 8ll [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents the trend — and we did it. By 1950, before Korea, mind you, the whole country was coming back to boom times. And now we have more than 62 million jobs in this coun- try, and that doesn't count any military at all. The Republican Party has a record of just the opposite of that. After World War I, they sat by and let us run up 7 million un- employed in 1 92 1. Ten years later they did even worse, they doubled it to 14 million unemployed by 1932. If they get in again, you have a chance of having 28 million un- employed. And I am sure you don't want that. Don't think they have learned any better these past 20 years, because they haven't. After World War II, the Democrats set out to pass a law that would put the full weight of the Government behind the task of keeping employment high. And what did the Republicans do? They fought it tooth and nail. The Republican Congress- men voted against the bill, 2 to 1. If you want the full story of Republican opposition, to the whole idea of full employment, you ought to read a book called "Congress Makes a Law." That book has a complete record of how they tried to scuttle the full employ- ment bill. It was written by a near neighbor of yours, Steve Bailey, the young man who has just been elected mayor of Middletown. The book is a real eye-opener. It shows the Republicans haven't learned a thing since Herbert Hoover's time. I know a lot of people were hoping last July that the Republicans had reformed when they nominated a general for President. But the General couldn't make the Republicans change their ways. The Old Guard politi- cians were just too smart for him. In fact, the General seems to like the Old Guard. He sat down at breakfast with Senator Taft the other day, and then let Taft explain that they agreed on all domestic issues. He came out after the Republican Convention in Chicago and said he was going to have a "great crusade." Then he sat down, as generals always do, and waited for higher authority to tell him what to do. And Taft did it. You can imagine what that will mean to your jobs in the future. I can't think of anything worse in the White House than a professional soldier who doesn't understand the complicated problems we have in this country. He is just a babe in the woods, and Senator Taft controls the woods. Don't fall for that. Vote your own inter- ests. You yourselves are the Government. I want to urge you to use your judgment. You yourselves have the power in this great Republic of ours to control the Govern- ment. Now your interest is in this election — one of the most important elections since the Civil War. If you study the issues, don't lis- ten to all the foolishness that goes on, but study the issues at stake in this campaign. That is what I am out trying to do — to call your attention to the issues. And then do a little thinking and go home and study the record of both parties, and your own inter- ests. And then think of the welfare of this great Nation, and think of our responsi- bilities in the world. We have the greatest responsibility that any nation has had in the history of the world. That whole thing is at stake in this election. Now, if you do those things, if you think of your own interests, if you think of the welfare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world, if you think of the welfare and peace of the world, you will go to the polls on November the 4th, and vote the Democratic ticket. [4.] Middletown, Connecticut (City Hall, 10:40 a.m.) I am happy to be here today — very happy indeed. I appreciate this cordial welcome you are extending to me now. In case you don't know it, I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, because this is the most important election for the peace and prosperity of the country and the world that has happened since the Civil War. You have some fine candidates here in 8l2 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] Connecticut. For the Senate you have Sen- ator Benton and Abe Ribicoff; two wonder- ful gentlemen for Congress: William M. Citron and Stanley Pribyson — both fine men. If you send that group to the Congress, you certainly will be well represented down there. The Democratic Party is fortunate in hav- ing a great candidate at the head of its ticket this year — Adlai Stevenson, the Gov- ernor of Illinois. As Governor he has proved his great administrative ability. He will make a great President. He is a man who can be trusted with the great burdens of civilian leadership over the next 4 years. I am particularly happy to be able to stop here in Middletown, because it is the birth- place of our great Secretary of State, Dean Acheson. Dean Acheson has contributed more than almost anybody in this country to the developing of our positive program to stop world communism. I have no doubt about the great place in history that will be accorded Dean Acheson as one of the chief architects of our foreign policy in these criti- cal times. We have developed a sound for- eign policy, and it has stopped Communist aggression in its tracks. We haven't just stood around and yelled "communism," and pointed the finger of shame and lie on peo- ple. We have stopped communism by direct action. There was a time when we could count on the enlightened support of enough Repub- licans to assure the continuation of this policy for holding down communism. That was when Senator Vandenberg was alive and vigorous and in the Senate. But now our foreign programs are under continual attack from the Republican Old Guard — the isolationist Republicans. They have captured the leadership of their party, and the result is plain to read in the Republi- can record in the Congress. It is a bad rec- ord and it is growing much worse, and getting worse these past 2 years. Now a new type of Republican isolation- ism has come to life — an isolationism that says it is all right to recognize our world responsibilities and the responsibilities of the United States, provided it doesn't cost any- thing. The saddening thing about this elec- tion campaign is that the Republican candi- date for President has become a front for isolationism. He has swallowed Senator Taft's foreign policy hook, line, and sinker, in the guise of a budget cut. The General has worked with me, and with General Marshall, and with Dean Acheson, in carrying out our foreign pro- grams, and I had thought he would con- tinue to support them, because he helped to make them. But I was mistaken. Instead, we have been treated to the spectacle of a great military figure throwing his reputa- tion and his record to the winds, sidestepping or repudiating all the things that we thought he stood for. The people of this country cannot entrust the great decisions in the years ahead to a man who has surrendered to the Old Guard Republicans. But unfortunately I am sorry to have to say these things because I have been very fond of Ike. I think he is a great general, and it hurts me to see him — it hurts me to see him throw all the principles which I gave him credit for to the winds. But, my friends, it is fortunate for this country that the Democratic Party has a candidate who will stand up and be counted for the things he believes in. He supports our foreign policy, and he will be true to our responsibilities for leadership in the cause of world peace. That is why I am confident that on November the 4th the American people will look after their interests. Now I am out here telling you just exactly what the country and the world is faced with. I am out here asking you to do a little thinking and studying. Study the issues. Study the record, and when you have done that, take your own interests into consideration. Re- member the welfare of the greatest Republic •in the history of the world. Remember that 813 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents world peace in the free world depends absolutely on the leadership of this great country. We must have a man in the White House who understands those things — and that man is Adlai Stevenson. [5.] New Britain, Connecticut (City Hall, 11:40 a.m.) I suppose that you know why I am here. I am out campaigning for a Democratic vic- tory in November. I appreciate most highly the courtesies which are extended to me here today. I have been intrigued and over- whelmed by John L. Sullivan. You know, you have a slate of candidates here — whom you just met — that are cer- tainly an asset to the Democratic ticket this fall. Your candidates for Senators are beyond compare. Now I understand that this is Abe RibicofFs birthplace. I hope you are as proud of him as I am. He has been a tower of strength in the House of Representa- tives and will be a fine successor to Brien McMahon. Bill Benton is my kind of Senator. He is a fighter, and he is always on the right side of the questions where the people's interests are concerned. I want to say that if Tom Dodd can really do to John Sullivan what he says he can, you certainly ought to have him in the Con- gress. Your Congressman at Large, Stanley Pribyson, is without compare. Now, if you will send a group of people like that down to the Congress, the interests of Connecticut will be well protected in the Government of the United States. Our national ticket this year is one of the best ever offered to the voters of the United States. You have already been visited by our candidate for President, Adlai Steven- son. He is a great American. You can count on him to measure up to the tough job of President for the next 4 years. One thing about Governor Stevenson that I want to stress to you — he really under- stands and really believes in the basic prin- ciples of equality that make our country great. He believes in equal treatment for everybody, no matter who they are or where they come from. Now, that kind of understanding, my friends, is important for a lot of reasons. There is one in particular that I want to stress here this morning. I want to talk to you about the sad fact that the immigration laws of our country do not recognize these basic principles of equality and fair play. These laws, passed by a Republican Congress and a Republican President in the 1920's, say that the Polish, Ukrainian, and Italian people who want to move to this country are less desirable than the people from north- ern Europe. So each year our doors are closed to all but a few people from southern and eastern Europe. This year we tried to get rid of this unfair law, but the Republicans in Congress with the help of some Democrats passed over my veto that awful McCarran Act. This new act makes our immigration laws even more unfair than ever to the Poles and the Italians and the people of Slavic countries. Men like your own Bill Benton fought hard against this unfair law. I am glad to say he was supported by our vice-presidential candidate. But the Republican candidate for Vice Presi- dent voted wrong, just as you would expect — and he has voted wrong every time he has had a chance to vote in the Senate, when the affairs of the people were at stake. Now it is true that this new bill bears the name of a Democrat. But he is not my kind of a Democrat at all. I like a Democrat who votes with the interests of the people. The Democrat for whom this bill is named cannot speak for the party. I speak for the party, and he — I say — is not my kind of a Democrat. I wish we could get some other people to point the scoundrels out in their own party and read them out of it; it would be mighty good for this campaign. The Democratic Party platform written this past July contains a promise to get rid of unfair restrictions on immigration, and if it's written on the Democratic ticket this 814 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] fall, that will be done, because our platforms are not pieces of paper. We write them to put them into effect for the welfare of the people. You won't find anything about the sub- ject in the Republican Party platform. You have heard nothing about it from the Re- publican candidate for the Presidency, and I will tell you why you don't hear anything about this immigration program from the Republicans. The Republican Party just does not understand the basic principles which have made our country great. Twen- ty years ago the Republicans adopted this policy of discrimination in our immigration laws, and now 20 years later they voted for it again. They just can't learn anything. The Republican Party is just as blind when it comes to understanding the economic pro- grams that have pulled this country out of the depression and given us the most pros- perous period in the history of the coun- try, or the world. For 20 years the Old Guard Republicans have been fighting the Democratic Party every inch of the way as we developed social security, unemployment compensation, minimum wage laws, and guarantees of collective bargaining. And these Republicans are the men who have now captured the Republican candidate lock, stock, and barrel. Like a good mili- tary man, the General is now taking his marching orders from the Old Guard Re- publicans headed by Senator Taft. But the people of this country for 20 years now have refused to turn their welfare into the hands of these shortsighted men. In- stead, they have placed their trust in the Democratic Party — the party of the people, the party that has never let them down. Now, I have urged everybody everywhere I have been to do a little thinking. Study the record. Study the voting record of the two parties in the Congress of the United States. That is where you will find what they stand for. Study your own interests and find out just how they have been pro- tected over the last 20 years, and who has protected them. Then, when you go to the polls, you will vote in your own interests, you will vote for the welfare of this great Nation, you will vote for the welfare of the free countries in this whole world, you will vote for the most powerful office in the history of the world. You should do some thinking, and you should do some praying, before you go to the polls on November the 4th — and remember the welfare of this country. If you do that, I haven't a doubt in the world that you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House for the next 4 years. [6.] Hartford, Connecticut (Address in front of the Hartford Times Building, 12:40 p.m., see Item 293) [7.] Windsor Locks, Connecticut (Rear platform, 1:45 p.m.) I am more than happy to be with you this afternoon. I have had a wonderful morning across Connecticut, and you know the beau- tiful part about it is I have to tell everybody I am not running for office. The crowds have been bigger than they were in 1948 when I was out asking you to vote for me. Now I am asking you to vote for somebody else. I guess you have heard a rumor as to why I am here. I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, if anybody doesn't know. You have a fine slate of candidates here. You have just seen them. I am very fond of Bill Benton. He is an able and distin- guished Senator. Abe Ribicoff has made a wonderful Representative, and he will make you a Senator that you will be proud of. Tom Dodd impresses me as being a man who knows what ought to be done for the welfare of the people, as does Stanley Pribyson. If you send a delegation like that from Con- necticut to the Congress, you will get the things in which Connecticut is interested be- fore that body, and get fair treatment, I am sure. As for our national ticket, Adlai Stevenson 815 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents and John Sparkman are two of the finest and most progressive men who have ever run for office. They both have good records of constructive service for the people. They are men who really understand the problems of the everyday man. You can trust them all the way. I have been enjoying the ride along the Connecticut River. This is beautiful coun- try, and a grand time of the year to be here. And I like your river. I am always inter- ested in rivers and what we have done with them and how we have made use of them. The New England pioneers developed the navigation and waterpower of this river for the common good. They built a produc- tive industry along its banks. They made it a channel of commerce and of trade. Then in the 19th century, your river and your valley were exploited mercilessly for private profit. The hills were denuded. The floods became a problem. Waste was dumped into the river and it became polluted. And here, of all places, where waterpower was first used for industry, the electricity that could be harnessed from your river is either undeveloped, or being sold to you at about the highest rates in the whole United States. There are great things to be done along this river, to make it perform full service once again for the people of the Connecticut valley. With proper conservation, floods can be stopped. Pollution can be checked, navigation can be improved, and new sources of cheaper power can be developed, for your factories and farms and homes. These are all things that you the peo- ple of this valley can do — with the right kind of cooperation from your towns and cities, and your States — and the Federal Govern- ment. Now the Democratic Party has always believed that the Government exists to help the people do the things they cannot get done by themselves. We want to give the people of this valley and all New England whatever help you yourselves desire in building up the resources of this great coun- tryside. That is what we have done in other river basins, helping people make the most of their fine rivers. The Republican Party has exactly the op- posite philosophy. They believe it is the purpose of Government to help special private interests exploit our national re- sources for their own private profit. If the Republicans take control in Washington, they won't help you with your navigation problems, or stream pollution, or power — for that might interfere with the enrichment of the manufacturers and the utilities who like things to stay as they are. Don't be fooled by scare stories that some- body in Washington wants to come up here and take this river away from you, or take control of it. There is not a word of truth in it. That is power lobby propaganda, and it's plain hooey. They are just afraid you might stand up someday and take control of your resources yourselves. The truth is you can develop and control this river your- selves, and a Democratic government will cooperate with your local and State author- ities to help you do it. Then you will really own the river, and be able to enjoy it the way you should, and make it work for you, in your interest, and not in the interests of private power. Now election day comes in November, as you know, on the 4th, and election day is the time when the people of the United States exercise the control of their Government. If you don't take an interest, if you don't get yourselves registered, if you don't go to the polls on the 4th of November, and you have bad government, you have nobody in the world to blame but yourselves. So, if you are going to do right by your- selves, if you are going to do right by your country, if you are going to help the world situation to come out without a third world war, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will vote for Stevenson and Sparkman, and we will have 4 more years of good government. 816 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] [8.] Thompsonville, Connecticut (Rear platform, 2:03 p.m.) I am more than happy to see you again. When I was here in 1948, 1 was trying to get myself elected President. Now I am back working for somebody else. I am working for the whole Democratic ticket, and I hope you will vote for all of them. You have a very, very fine slate of Demo- cratic candidates here in Connecticut. For the Senate you have Abe Ribicoff and Bill Benton, two very able and decent persons. For Congress you have Tom Dodd. He did a fine job in Nuremberg, prosecuting the Nazi war criminals, and a very good job back home in the Justice Department. I know he will be a good prosecutor for your interests if you send him to Washington. You have a very, very fine gentleman running for Congressman at Large in Stan- ley Pribyson. Now, on our national ticket, Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman are very fine men, with great progressive records of public serv- ice. They both have shown that they care about the problems of the plain everyday people of this country. They are men you can trust all the way. I hope you have been listening to Gover- nor Stevenson's speeches. I hope you will go and hear him speak when he comes back to New England. He is talking sense to the American people, telling everybody where he stands on all the issues. Now there is a little thing I want to men- tion to you — just quietly and under the cover — I hope the Enfield Society for the Detection of Horse Thieves and Robbers is still in operation. I know the Society was keeping up its headquarters in Enfield a few years ago. And I hope the Society is all set for some emergencies — just in case something happens next November that we don't ex- pect. Because now I am going to give you some quotations — now these are not my re- marks at all, these are quotes — because if the Republicans should win this election, the Society is going to have lots of business after November the 4th. There's an awful bunch of horsethieves in the National Republican Party. And this is what they said them- selves. At least that is what they say about each other, in Chicago, and you wouldn't find me to be one that would deny it. At the Republican Convention last July, there were two groups that had a whale of a fight with one another. One side was the so-called liberal wing of the party, with a lot of New Englanders in it. The other side was the so-called reactionary or Taft wing. Now you may remember the so-called liberals spent their time calling the Taft men a bunch of rustlers. And the Taft men re- turned the compliment with interest, I'll say. The so-called liberals were successful — so Taft said — in stealing the big prize at Chi- cago. They took the nomination away from Taft and gave it to a very famous general. And then you know what happened? The General kicked out the people who had got him nominated, and he surrendered, lock, stock, and barrel to the Taft crowd — the rustlers they had been all so mad about. He surrendered to Taft. He embraced Jenner. He brought McCarthy on the train, and now they are running his campaign for him. It is hard to say who won the battle at Chi- cago. It is even harder to say who is a horsethief now. But one thing is very clear. A vote for the Republicans this year is a vote for Taft, for Taft's foreign policy, for Taft's labor policy, for Taft's domestic policies in general. He has said so, and the General has backed him up. Now that would be a terrible thing for this country, just as those liberal New England Republicans agreed that it would when they fought Taft at Chicago. It would be bad for the country and the peace of the world, and it would be very bad for you. But it does not have to happen. If you will use your judgment, if you will do a little thinking, if you will look at the record, if you compare the men at the head of each ticket, you will vote for yourselves. 817 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents You are the Government, and if you vote for your own interests, if you vote for the welfare of this great Nation of ours, which is the most powerful Nation in the history of the world, if you will vote for the welfare of this great Nation, and vote for the wel- fare of the free countries of the world, you will vote the Democratic ticket on November the 4th, and the Government will be safe another 4 years. [9.] Springfield, Massachusetts (Plat- form near the station, 2:32 p.m.) I certainly am highly pleased to be here again, and I am more than highly pleased at the warmth of this reception. I didn't think you would be out looking for a "has- been," to see what he would look like, and I feel highly complimented that you were willing to come out and hear me discuss the issues. That is all I am doing. I am trying to put before the people just exactly what the issues are, and when they know what they are, they will know what to do. This is good Democratic country. You have shown by your voting record that you know the Democartic Party is the party that really works for the people. I expect you know why I am here. Maybe I had better tell you, though. I am cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket. I am working in one of my five jobs as the head of the Democratic Party. You have an excellent slate of Democrats here in Massachusetts. For Congress, Ed- ward P. Boland — I am sure he will do the same kind of first-class job for you in Wash- ington that Foster Furcolo has done. Now, I understand you are going to elect Mr. Furcolo State treasurer this year. From what he has shown us in Washington, I know he will be a good one. We also have a candidate for Congress in the First District with us on this train, Wil- liam H. Burns. I know he will make a good Representative of that district, for the Sen- ate. You have a fine young man in the candidate for the Senate, and we certainly do need some young blood in that Senate. Young John Kennedy is a man who has already rendered great service to this State in the House of Representatives, and will keep up the good work in the Senate. Be sure and send him down there. For Governor you don't need my telling you anything about Paul Dever for Gov- ernor. He is as fine a Democratic leader who will continue his excellent work in the State capital. I want to say a word about the national ticket now, if I may. Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Here in Springfield you have already had a chance to see Governor Steven- son and listen to what he has to say. He is one of the outstanding men in public service in our generation. When he speaks to the people, he gives them the straight story. Stevenson is a man of great integrity and real feeling for the everyday people of this country. He is a man you can trust in the Office of the President. That is also true of John Sparkman. He is one of our most progressive leaders in the Congress. He has proved by his record of 15 years in the House and Senate that he can be trusted to work for all the people. While I am here — this happens to be Roger Putnam's hometown, and while I am talk- ing about men who have given great service to the American people, I want to pay tribute to this hometown's man of yours — the former mayor of Springfield, Roger Putnam. Roger Putnam has been down in Washington for over a year now, handling the tough job of Economic Stabilizer. He took over that as- signment just after the Republicans had finished their first hatchet job on our price and wage controls. He has since lived through another attempted slaughter by the Republicans, and he has done a grand job in helping to stabilize our economy in spite of all the Republican obstruction. I suppose you know that the Republican candidate for President has been going 818 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [292] around the country moaning about the high prices we are paying today, and blaming it all on the Democratic administration. Of course, he does not dare mention the voting record of the Republican Party. Maybe nobody's told him that his party in Congress has a long, unbroken record of trying to kill or cripple price and wage and rent controls at every chance they have. Back in 1946 when we needed controls, until our civilian production got back to normal, the Republicans voted almost to a man to kill controls. They finally succeeded, and the cost of living went up 15 percent in 6 months, just as I predicted it would. I am sure you all remember that period, the worst inflationary rise in the history of the country. In 1947 and 1948 I tried to get price con- trol authority back on the statute books, but the Republican "good-for-nothing" 80th Congress just laughed at my efforts. Then the Korean emergency came along, and by the time we got a controls bill passed and the stabilization agencies established, the cost of living had gone up almost 8 percent in 6 months. Then in early November 1951, we got a general price freeze put on. And what did the Republicans do, once we put a lid on prices? They began a vicious attack on the basic price control legislation. In 195 1 they put across the Capehart amendment which by now has added a billion dollars in higher prices to the American people. Last year the Republican Senators voted 7 to 1 to curtail price rollbacks, and 12 to 1 to prevent effective control of black market- ing in meat. This year the Republican Congressmen voted 4 to 1 to scuttle all price controls, and 6 to 1 to end all rent controls. And then to top it all off, in 1951, and again this year, the Republicans ganged up with a few Democrats to slash appropriations so that the remaining control authority could not be properly enforced against the chiselers and the profiteers. Despite these Republican attempts to wreck controls, we have been doing a pretty good job to keep inflation down. In the past 20 months, the cost of living has risen less than 4 percent. Prices are higher than they ought to be, and I told you why. But in spite of high prices, most people are better off than they ever were before. The dollar does not buy as much as it once did, but peo- ple have a lot more dollars to buy with. The income has gone up a lot faster than prices in these last 20 years — twice as fast, in fact. The Hoover dollars were worth a lot, all right, but it took many people an entire day's labor to earn one of them. And 14 million of our fellow citizens who were un- employed weren't able to earn anything at all. So the Hoover dollar didn't do them a bit of good. The Republicans have given this country two terrible demonstrations of how they can drive prices down. In 1921 they got prices down 20 percent in a big hurry — and there were 7 million people out of work. In 193 1 they got prices down 25 percent in 2 years — and it took 14 million unemployed to do that. Any time you hear their candidate talk about cutting prices, and bringing back that Hoover dollar, you had better stop and think how the Republicans go about those things. In the first effort they made 7 million un- employed. In the next effort they made 14 million unemployed, and if you give them another chance, you will probably have 28 million. Is that worth a Hoover dollar? You won't get steady prices from an outfit like that — boom and bust is their stock in trade. Their record speaks for itself. They won't look out for your jobs, your income, or the prices you have to pay. This Government is your Government. The Constitution provides that the power of government rests in the people, and when the people exercise their right to vote, they exercise the power that controls the Gov- ernment. Now I am going around the country try- ing to get the people to think, trying to get people to read the record. I am trying to get people to understand just what their interests are. I am trying to get them to 819 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents remember that the record made in the Con- gress by the Republicans in Congress is the record on which they have to run. They don't want to run on that record. They don't dare to. I want you also to study the record of the Democrats in Congress. The majority of the Democrats in Congress have always been for the people, and they always will be for the people. Now, if you want to look out for your own interests, if you want to look out for the welfare of this great Nation of ours, if you want to look out for the welfare of the free nations of the world, and to keep the world free, and to keep communism from this country, the way to do that is to vote for the party that has always been against commu- nism, that has always fought them and convicted them. We have taken action — we haven't just talked about it and smeared people just for the benefit of a few head- lines. Go to the polls on the 4th of November and vote in your own interests. Vote the Democratic ticket and the country will be safe another 4 years. [10.] Worcester, Massachusetts (Near the train, 4:20 p.m.) I can't tell you how much I appreciate this most cordial welcome. I was here 4 years ago when I was campaigning for myself. I am campaigning this time just as hard as I was then, because this is one of the most im- portant elections we ever had, and if it is at all possible, I am more anxious that we win this election than I was in 1948 — and that's saying a lot. The reason I feel that way, I think this is the most important election this country has had since the War Between the States. Now, you have a wonderful slate of Demo- crats running for office here in Massachu- setts. You have Jack Kennedy for the Sen- ate. I know him very well. I knew his father before him. He has made a wonder- ful public servant in the House of Represent- atives, and he will give you the right kind of representation in the Senate. Then for Congress you have Harold Donohue, who has a record that does not need me to tell you about. Your Governor has made a rec- ord on which you should endorse him over- whelmingly, and I know you will. And I understand that we are in the hometown of your Lieutenant Governor — and you know more about him than I do, so use your judg- ment, and I know you will send him back. Now the Democratic Party is exceedingly fortunate in having two great men to head its ticket this year — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They can stand on their records of long service in the public interest. They are men of integrity and conscience, and they will work in the great tradition of the Democratic Party. I have been all across the country from coast to coast in the last 3 weeks, and I have seen a very prosperous country. This pros- perity we have seems to be driving the Re- publicans crazy. They just can't understand how the country can be prosperous with Democrats in office. The Republican candidate for President has been doing his best to prove that this prosperity does not exist, that it is all done with mirrors. Now if you can beat that, I'll pay it on the line. But he knows people won't believe that. So he has been trying to get across the notion that the Democrats don't know how to keep the country prosperous except by spending money on national defense. Now that is not true. It is just one more Republican false- hood to scare you and confuse you in this campaign. That is the reason I am out here. I am out here to tell you the truth. Everywhere I go I see signs or people yell- ing "Give 'em hell, Harry." Well now, that is an awful reputation for a good Baptist to get, and I am telling you what I am doing — I am telling the truth and giving you the issues, and that is a lot worse than giving the Republicans hell, because they can't stand the truth. The truth is that our prosperity is sound 820 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [292] and healthy. Right now we have a total national production of about $340 billion. Defense accounts for less than one-sixth of that output. Now in 1945, after the Jap- anese folded up, I organized a commis- sion to look into the return to civil affairs after World War II; and I sent that com- mittee— two of them, one of them was Sen- ator Benton of Connecticut — to see Senator Taft, who was then the Republican leader in the Senate. I had them ask him what his remedy was — we had decided that we needed a $140 billion income if we were going to keep people at work. Taft said that was im- possible, we would never reach $100 bil- lion income, and the best thing to do was to take all the women out of work and let the men do the work, and then this country could go along and everybody would have jobs. Now, if that's not one for the book, I don't know what is. And he is running their present nominee for President. Now, defense accounts for less than one- sixth of that $340 billion output. Now, get this straight. If it were not for the defense effort, we would be even more prosperous than we are now. The defense effort is mak- ing us postpone and put off a lot of things we need, things that will make our country greater and stronger. Our population is growing fast, our cities are growing — that means lots of things to do. We need a lot of redevelopment in our cities. We need more houses, better and cheaper houses, more roads, more schools, more hospitals. Out West where I have been, we need a lot more dams and irrigation works, and all those things. We need more food, and more consumers goods of every kind. Thou- sands of businessmen are ready now to ex- pand their plants or build new ones. They see bigger markets ahead. In the city of Worcester, where you make all kinds of things, and know how to adapt your production fast, there will surely be a lot of good work for you, when defense tapers off. This means there need be no de- pression in this country, and there won't be, if you keep the kind of government in Wash- ington that understands these things and will help get new production going in the right places at the right time. That is one thing that the Democratic Party knows how to do. They have shown it. Remember 1949 when things started to slide back, we took quick action then, and by the spring of 1950 we were in boom times again. That was before Korea started. The defense buildup had nothing whatever to do with it. But the Republicans are right about one thing. There could be a depression. They ought to know. They are experts in de- pression organization. The last time they held office, we had two depressions in 12 years. They don't seem to have any notion of how to get prosperity and growth. For 20 years the Republicans have been voting against almost everything the Democrats have done to help build this country up. Unfortunately, their candidate for President could not change them if he wanted to. He has been a fine general, but the Army is all he has ever known in his whole life. You don't learn much in the Army about what workers and farmers need, or what it takes to keep the country going. If you have never milked a cow, or ploughed a corn row, if you have never worked with your hands, you never can tell what the country needs. And a man who has had social security all his life in the United States Army, doesn't know what it means to meet a payroll. He can't under- stand how those things are done. And he doesn't know any more about politics than a babe in the woods. He is in the woods and Taft has got the woods under control. The General is surrounded by the Republi- can Old Guard, and they have taken him to town. I don't think you can take a chance on turning your country over to an outfit like that. Don't vote for a big business government. Don't vote for a military government. You are responsible for what sort of government we have. The Constitution provides that the power of the Government in this Repub- 55-672^66*- -55 821 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents lie rests in the people — in you. Now, if you will study the issues — and that is what I am out to get you to do — I want you to satisfy yourselves, I am not trying to convert you to something unusual, I am trying to get you to look after your own interests. I am trying to get you to think about things. I want you to read the record. I want you to study the record of the Republicans in Congress, which is what their policy will be. They have shown it by their votes. And I want you to study the Democratic record in the Congress. That is what the Democrats have done. That is what they will continue to do. And then I want you to go to the polls on November the 4th and vote for yourselves. Vote in your own interests. Vote for the welfare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world. Vote for the welfare of the free world. And when you do that, you will put Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman in the Presi- dency and the Vice Presidency, and this country will be safe for another 4 years. [11.] Clinton, Massachusetts (Rear plat- form, 5:35 p.m.) I am very, very glad indeed to be in Clin- ton here this evening. This is the home of one of my very good friends, about whom I will speak in a minute. You people in Massachusetts have a most wonderful slate of candidates running. For Senator, you have that able young Con- gressman, Jack Kennedy. He will make you a great Senator, and I want you to elect him. For Congress, you have had presented to you an able and distinguished Congress- man, Phil Philbin. You couldn't have a better one. And for Governor, you have Paul Dever. You know him by experience. He will make you a good Governor, and you can't do anything else but elect him. We have a great candidate for President this year, Adlai Stevenson. He is a fine and able man. He will give this country good government and real leadership. Adlai Stevenson has served as Governor of a great State, and has proved his talents as a civilian administrator. He knows the problems of the people, and his experience in Illinois shows that he knows how to make the Gov- ernment work for the people. And he is a man you can trust. Now I have been in politics for 40 years. I have had every reward that the people of the greatest Nation in the world can give to a man. I started in elective public office just 30 years ago next month — I was elected to my first elective public office. For 30 years I have been in county government, I have been a United States Senator, I have been Vice President — and for the last 7 years I have been President of the United States. And my ability, if I have any, to make that office function, has been, I think, a talent for picking the right man for the right place. Now one of my three secretaries comes from this city right here. You know him. You know what kind of man he is. He is able, efficient, honest, and he has been a tower of strength to the President of the United States. His name is Matt Connelly — I don't need to tell you. Now, just for your welfare and informa- tion, and for the information of the country at large, I think I shall elaborate a little bit on the personnel of the Government of the United States in the administrative branch. There have been a great many misstate- ments made about the people who constitute the part of your Government that makes the Government work, and that is the adminis- trative end of the Government. Now I have a Secretary of State, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who was Under Secretary of State, who was the Vice Chairman of the Commission that wrote up the recommendations for the reorganization of the Government. He has made one of the greatest Secretaries of State that the coun- try has ever had. I never was acquainted with him until I came to Washington. I made him Secretary of State because in my opinion he is the best fitted man for the place: Dean Acheson. I have a Secretary of the Treasury who 822 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [292] was the Director of the Defense Plants Cor- poration in World War II. He spent $20 billion building the defense plants of this country, and every dollar of that $20 bil- lion went where it should go. And we won the war as a result of the effectiveness of that Defense Plants Corporation under John W. Snyder. My Secretary of Defense was an Assistant Secretary of War under Stimson. He was an assistant in the reorganization of Ger- many. He has been Assistant Secretary of State. He is one of the ablest men that the Government has ever had; and his name is Bob Lovett. And I never saw him until I picked him on account of his ability and efficiency. My Attorney General was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States under two Attorneys General. He was Assistant to the Attorney General. I made him a Fed- eral judge in Philadelphia. He was an able and distinguished Federal judge. And when the office of the Attorney General became vacant, I asked him to forego his lifetime job as a Federal judge and come back and be- come my Attorney General, and he did it — Judge McGranery. Then I have a Postmaster General who is unique in the history of the United States. He started as a letter carrier more than 30 years ago. He has come up the line every step of the way. He was Assistant Postmaster General when there was a vacan- cy in the Post Office Department, and on ac- count of his ability and efficiency, I made him Postmaster General — the first career man ever to be made Postmaster General in the history of the country. His name is Jesse Donaldson. Then I have a Secretary of the Interior, who was Under Secretary of the Interior under Mr. Ickes. And when Mr. Ickes quit, I made Oscar Chapman Secretary of the Interior. He is a career man. He knows more about the Interior Department than any other man who has ever been in that job, and he does an excellent job for the Government. Then I have a Secretary of Agriculture. His name is Charlie Brannan. He was in the Agricultural Department for the last 20 years. He knows the Agriculture Depart- ment from top to bottom. He is the ablest Secretary of Agriculture that has ever been there, and I know something about it, be- cause I started on the farm and I have known all the Secretaries of Agriculture for 40 years — and this is the best one we ever had. The Secretary of Commerce is an able and distinguished lawyer and businessman from Ohio, with whom I was not acquainted until I went to Potsdam, and at that time he was Ambassador to Belgium. He was one of my advisers at Potsdam, and on account of his ability I made him Secretary of Com- merce— and he is a good one. His name is Charlie Sawyer. Now in 1948, I had an able and distin- guished former Senator and former Fed- eral judge for Secretary of Labor — Lew Schwellenbach. He suddenly passed away in the middle of 1948, a very crucial year. Now you have a very able and distinguished citizen up here in Massachusetts who had been the mayor of Boston, who had been Governor of the great State of Massachu- setts. And I asked him to come to see me, and I said to him, "I want to place you in my Cabinet as Secretary of Labor. You are taking a chance. I may not be here ex- cept to the end of this term, but I would like very much for you to take the Labor Depart- ment for me." And Maurice Tobin took it. And he has run it ever since. Now I have two Presidential assistants. These are the Cabinet members that sit around the Cabinet table with me once or twice a week and discuss world affairs and national affairs. And we know where we are going, and what we are doing — don't let anybody tell you anything else. Now these two assistants are able and distinguished men. One of them was Am- bassador at Large and in charge of the revival of Europe. He was Ambassador to Russia for 3 years. He was Ambassador to Great 823 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents Britain for 2 or 3 years, and when I had a vacancy as Secretary of Commerce, I tele- phoned him in London and brought him back here and made him Secretary of Com- merce. And when this European recovery program — Marshall plan — came up, I made him the civilian in charge of it. And he is now my assistant and Ambassador at Large to see that that plan comes to its final con- clusion. And it has been a great success because we have kept all of Western Europe from going Communist by that Marshall plan. His name is Averell Harriman. I have another assistant who has been with me nearly ever since I have been President of the United States. He is a coordinator of the difficulties that arise in the administra- tive end of the Government. His name is John Steelman. He is a career man, and he has a Ph. D. He knows what he is doing, and he does an excellent job. Now, my friends, the reason I am rehash- ing this for you is because there never has been an organization about which so much misrepresentation and so many lies have been told as have been told about my Presi- dential family that runs the Government of the United States. Now I have three Secretaries. I have a number of Executive assistants and every one of whom is as efficient and able as any group of men that could be gotten together. Dean Acheson was the Deputy Chairman of the organization known as the Hoover Commission, which wrote and recom- mended the plans for the efficient reorganiza- tion of the Government. I have set the ad- ministrative end of our Government on a more efficient basis than it has been since the Government was launched. I am not bragging, I am merely telling you facts. And I have sent more reorganization plans to the Congress of the United States than all the other Presidents put together; and I have had more of them turned down by the Re- publicans and a coalition of Democrats who did not believe in the things that I want to do, than any other President has done. I am telling you all this so you will know the facts, and I am out here now for a spe- cific purpose. I didn't have to come out here and work for the election of a candidate for President. But with all the effort that has been put forth in the last 20 years to give you a government of the people, and by the people, and for the people, I felt that it was my duty to come out here and put the issues in this campaign before you, the people. The Republicans can't discuss the issues because they don't dare. They have been wrong on every program that has come be- fore the Congress of the United States where the interests of all the people are at stake. They won't talk about it. They want to go off on some side issue. The Republican candidate said he was go- ing out on a crusade. He said that at Chi- cago. But he didn't know what the crusade was about until Senator Taft told him. I feel terribly bad about having to say these things, because I was very fond of Eisen- hower. I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I sent him to Europe in command of the greatest organization that we are now making to keep the Com- munists from taking the world. If I hadn't had that confidence in him, of course I wouldn't have done that. But he has come back here and he has thrown every princi- ple that he is supposed to stand for out the window in the hope of buying votes — he has thrown those principles away. I can't stand for that, so I am out here to tell you the truth, and that is the only reason in the world that I am going around the country and putting these facts out. Because I know what the facts are. I was there, and I can tell you what those facts are; and I know that the people of this United States know me, and they believe me when I tell them the truth. And I want you to do some thinking. I want you to take the situation with which we are faced right now. I want you to study the facts. I want you to look at the record. I want you to find out just exactly the record in Congress of these Republican Congress- men, and the record in Congress of the 824 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [292] Democratic Congressmen. That is the policy on which you can base your vote. Then when you have done that, I am going to ask you to go home and pray over it — think about the welfare of this Nation, think about your own welfare, think about the welfare of the free nations of the world, and think of the peace of the world. All I have worked for for 7 years has been peace, and to prevent a third world war. And every policy I have pursued has been with that end in view. I want that policy continued, and in order to get that policy continued, I want you to send Adlai Steven- son and John Sparkman to Washington as President and Vice President of the United States. [12.] Lowell, Massachusetts (Platform near the station, 6:52 p.m.) I am more than happy to be here tonight. It has been a most wonderful day coming through New England. I have enjoyed the scenery, but as you may have heard, I didn't come on this trip to look at scenery. I am out here on a campaign trip, working as hard as I can for a Democratic victory in November. You have a very, very fine slate of Demo- cratic candidates running for office here in Massachusetts. You have just been intro- duced to them. Now you should, for your own welfare and benefit, send Jack Kennedy to the Senate, Helen Cullen to the House, and Paul Dever to the Governor's chair again. Now I hope — I hope most sincerely that you are getting acquainted with the Dema- cratic candidate for President, Adlai Steven- son. Governor Stevenson is coming back to New England in a few days now, and I hope you will see him and hear him as often as you possibly can. He is the finest new leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt back in 1932. He is talking sense to the Ameri- can people. And when you hear him, you will know as I do that he is a man you can trust. I want to tell you some things you ought to know about Adlai Stevenson's fine record as Governor of Illinois, but before I do that, I would like to read you an article someone sent me the other day from your local paper, the Sunday Sun for October 5th. I see you have the same opinion of the Sunday Sun that I have of the Kansas City Star. But sometimes, my friends, sometimes these awful newspapers have to print the truth, and this is one time it did. "$307 thousand in social security checks were mailed to Lowell last week." Then the article goes on to say, "This week will bring increased social security checks to about 800,000 people in greater Lowell." About 8,000, not 800,000 "monthly benefit checks mailed during the first week of Octo- ber will amount to about $307,000. In- creases of from $5 to $8.60 each month will go to most retired workers who receive old-age insurance payments." Now I am glad these insurance benefits are being paid, but there is a story behind them I think you ought to know. For it is a good example of exacdy what this election is all about. All the people who are getting these bene- fits have of course been paying premiums into the Treasury for years. And the amounts they and their employers paid in, turned out to be larger than were needed to finance the benefits paid out at the old rate. So extra money was piling up in the Treas- ury's insurance account. And last spring, I asked the Congress to raise the benefit rates and give this money back to the people who were receiving insurance benefits. It seemed to me that this was only fair — and a good way to help compensate for in- creases in the cost of living. The Democrats in Congress thought so, too. Our great Majority Leader, John W. McCormack, was one of those who helped to get action. And in May a social security bill, including this change and some other improvements, came up for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. Then what happened? The great majority of 825 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents Democrats voted for it, of course, but two- thirds of the Republicans voted against it, and the bill failed to pass. Well, John McCormack and some others, wouldn't take "No" for an answer. They brought the bill up again a month later. And they turned the spotlight on the Repub- licans, who got a lot of heat, I am glad to say. Some of those Republicans got scared and enough of them changed their votes to let the bill go through this second time. The Senate passed it, too. I signed it with great pleasure. And 8,000 people here in Lowell are now getting the benefit. But they would never have gotten a thing if the Republicans had had their way — and don't you forget it. Now I tell you the story because the Re- publican candidate for President spoke in Los Angeles a few days ago and claimed that his party was in favor of improving and extending social security. He asserted, and I q,uote him directly, "The social security law was a bipartisan law to meet a need which had become urgent in the depression." You see, he is starting to say "me too" — it is pretty late in this campaign, though, to start that, and I don't want you to believe it. In the first place, the social security law was not a bipartisan law. The Republicans fought tooth and toenail against the original social security law in 1935, and I was in the Senate and I know what I am talking about. They voted 95 to 1 to recommit the bill in the House of Representatives. That was the real test in the House. Of course, when we licked them on that, they strung along and voted to pass the bill. So now they claim they helped to start social security. They didn't do anything of the kind. In 1936 the Republican candidate for President — you re- member him, Alf Landon — campaigned against social security. He called it a "cruel hoax." In the 80th, "good-for-nothing" Congress, the Republicans took social security protec- tion away from nearly a million people. And in 1949 when the Democrats put through a great expansion of the social security program, most of the Republicans hampered and obstructed and fought against the very improvements their candidate now hints he might be for. You can't afford to be fooled by this "me too" line. The Republican Party in Con- gress has a solid record of opposition to so- cial security. Not so long ago, their candi- date did not have much use for it, either. About 3 or 4 years ago, before he became a Republican politician, he was going around the country saying, "If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They will have enough to eat, they will have a bed to sleep on, they will have a roof over their heads." When you hear the Republicans make promises at campaign time, you had better look at their record, and you had better find out how that General feels deep down in his heart. Look into these things, not just on social security but on all the things you want and need, and are entitled to. Do that, my friends, and I am out here to try and get you to think. I am out here try- ing to get you to look at the record. I am out here to get you to look at the record of the Republicans in Congress, and the Demo- crats in Congress, and then make up your mind on what is best for you, and what is best for this great Republic of ours, and what is best for the free world. And all I ask you to do is to inform your- selves and vote intelligently. You know, the power of this great Republic rests with you, and that power is exercised on election day. When you neglect to do that, when you ne- glect to register, when you neglect to vote, and you get bad government, you have got nobody to blame but yourselves, and you get just what you ought to get. I am begging you — I am praying with you — to use your best judgment for your own welfare, for the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and for peace in the world to come. I am asking you to vote to see the greatest age in the history of the world, if you have the right kind of government. 826 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [292] And in order to do that, you have got to put forward-looking people in office. And I want to say to you young people that we are faced with the greatest opportunity, we are faced with the greatest age in the his- tory of the world. And we have to have forward-looking people to make that age work for your benefit, and for the benefit of all the people of this great Nation. And you can't do that if you put people in charge of the Federal government who want to turn the clock back to 1896. The clock won't run backward. It has to run forward, and you have to make it run forward. Now to do this, after you have satisfied yourselves that it is right for you, and right for the Republic, go to the polls on Novem- ber the 4th, and vote the Democratic ticket, and you will have 4 more years of good government — and forward-looking govern- ment. [13.] Nashua, New Hampshire (Rear platform, 7:58 p.m.) I am very happy to stop here in Hillsboro County tonight, because I am told that this county has voted Democratic in presidential elections ever since 1928. That shows that you are a very sensible people, and I am always happy to be among good Democrats. I don't know whether you know it or not, or whether you have suspected it, but I am out campaigning to elect a Democratic ticket this fall. I have enjoyed meeting your candi- dates here in New Hampshire. Your candi- date for Congress, John Guay; your candi' date for Governor, William H. Craig. I am glad you have a good Democrat running for Governor this year, because I expect poor Sherman Adams will be a nervous wreck after he gets off that campaign train he is on now. This year the Democratic Party has a can- didate for President, one of the finest men to serve in public life in this generation — Adlai Stevenson. He is a man of integrity and conviction, and as Governor of Illinois he has proved his abilities as a civilian administrator, and he will make a great President. I have been traveling all across this coun- try and back, from coast to coast, explaining to the people the main issues in this cam- paign. When you come right down to it, the big issue shows up in the basic differ- ences between our two parties. The Democratic Party has always been the party with a heart for the people. With us the people come first. With the Republican Party, property and profits come first, and come ahead of the people. You people in this city have had first- hand experience with the way this Re- publican approach works against the peo- ple. You have been losing some of your textile mills, and one of the reasons is the Taft-Hartley law passed by the Republican 80th Congress. That act has almost stopped the growth of unions. It has made it easy for employers in nonunionized parts of the country to use every trick in the book to keep workers from organizing and obtaining better wages. That way, wages in other places have been kept down below what you have had to pay here, and this has made is very attractive for the textile companies to move out of New England. Now you might as well make up your minds that the Taft-Hardey Act and all the trouble it has caused is just small change alongside of the damage the Republicans would bring about if they got control of both the White House and the Congress. They have been talking about giving you a change, but it wouldn't be the kind of change you want or would like to have. Social security, farm price supports, rural electrification, and other New Deal and Fair Deal programs for the benefit of the workers and the farmer would be sabotaged one way or another. That may sound like a pretty strong statement, but it can be backed up by the record — the voting record of the Repub- licans in Congress. That is what the Re- publicans did in the 80th Congress when they had control. In the last 4 years, they 827 [292] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents haven't reformed. They don't even claim that they have reformed. In fact, in their platform this year — in their platform they endorsed that "good-for-nothing, do- nothing" 80th Congress that I talked so much about in 1948. They endorsed all it did. For over 20 years now they have been fighting these forward-looking programs that the Democrats stand for, and they want to put the Democrats out of the White House so they can undo most of what the New Deal and Fair Deal has done for the people. This year they thought they had their chance by putting up as their candidate for President a great military hero. They figured his popularity would cover up the black record of the Old Guard Republicans. But the General has made it clear that he is taking orders from the same old bunch of Old Guard Republicans. I don't think the people of this country are going to be tricked or fooled into voting for a five-star general who is just fronting for the worst elements in the Republican Party. I came out here on this trip — and the other one which I took West — to try and inform everybody exactly what this election means. This is one of the most important elections in the history of the country. This election will decide whether we are going to go forward into the greatest age in the his- tory of the world, or whether we are going to try to turn the clock back to 1896. Now you — you people — make up the Gov- ernment. You control the Government. It is your privilege to exercise that control on election day. The Constitution of the United States provides that the power of govern- ment in this Republic rests with the people — with you. I want you to do some thinking. I want you to think these things over. I want you to study the record. I want you to study the record of the Republicans in Congress. I want you to study the record of the Demo- crats in Congress, and then when you have done that, I want you to make up your minds in your own interests. I want you to make up your minds for the welfare of the great- est Republic in the history of the world. I want you to make up your minds for the welfare and benefit of the free world which for the last 7 years we have been trying to keep from going Communist. If you do that, my friends, you can't do but one thing on election day, and that is go down to the polls and send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [14.] Manchester, New Hampshire (Ad- dress at the Armory, 9:05 p.m., see Item 294) note: In the course of his remarks on October 16 the President referred to, among others, Senator William Benton, Representative Abraham A. Ribicofl, Democratic candidate for the position left vacant by the death of Senator Brien McMahon (see Item 219), Representative John A. McGuire, Democratic candi- dates for Representative Stanley J. Pribyson, William M. Citron, and Thomas J. Dodd, and Mayor John L. Sullivan of New Britain, all of Connecticut, Francis T. Maloney, Senator from Connecticut, 193 4-1 945, Mrs. Francis T. Maloney, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan, 1 928-1 951, and Senators Robert A. Taft of Ohio, William E. Jenner of Indiana, and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin. The President also referred to Democratic candi- dates for Representative Edward P. Boland, Wil- liam H. Burns, and Helen Cullen, Representatives Foster Furcolo, Harold D. Donahue, Philip J. Phil- bin, and John W. McCormack, Representative John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate for Senator, Gov- ernor Paul A. Dever, Economic Stabilization Ad- ministrator Roger Putnam, Lieutenant Governor Charles F. Jeff Sullivan, all of Massachusetts; Secre- tary to the President Matthew J. Connelly, Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder, Secretary of De- fense Robert A. Lovett, Attorney General James P. McGranery, Postmaster General Jesse M. Donaldson, former Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes, Secretary of the Interior Oscar L. Chapman, Secre- tary of Agriculture Charles F. Brannan, Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer, Lewis B. Schwellenbach, Secretary of Labor, 1 945-1948, Secretary of Labor Maurice Tobin, Director for Mutual Security and former Special Assistant to the President Averell Harriman, and The Assistant to the President John R. Steelman. He further referred to Democratic can- didate for Representative John Guay, Democratic candidate for Governor William H. Craig, and Governor Sherman Adams, all of New Hampshire. 828 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [293] 293 Address in Hartford, Connecticut. October 16, 1952 I AM more than happy to see so many peo- ple out here today to welcome the President of the United States in his capacity as the head of the Democratic Party. Last week and the week before, I crossed the country from coast to coast. I gave the people a lot of reasons why Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman should be elected Presi- dent and Vice President on November the 4th — and why they should be given a strong Democratic Congress to support them. Now I have been traveling across the State of Connecticut with your candidates for the Senate and the Congress. And Connecticut will certainly be properly represented in the Congress of the United States, and its inter- ests will be properly looked after, if you send Bill Benton, Abe Ribicoff, and the Congress- men from these districts in Connecticut to the Congress to look after your interests. As I traveled, I also saw a lot of reasons why Democrats should be elected in Novem- ber. I saw busy factories, rich farming lands, and prosperous people. I saw on every hand the signs of growth, of new enterprise, of new investment — of a spirit of confidence in the future of this great Republic of ours. I know that in New England this week I am going to see the same spirit. I have al- ready seen it in Connecticut this morning. Now, the Republicans will try to tell you that the kind of government we have has nothing at all to do with whether we're prosperous or not. I just say to you, "Look who's talking." It's easy enough to see why the Republicans would like to have you believe that. They're the people who had control of the National Government in the 1920's, and whose policies led us into the darkest depression that this rich country has ever seen. Many of you in this audience are too young to remember the days when there were 14 million unemployed, when there were bank failures in almost every city, when there were breadlines and some soup kitchens, when 55-672—66- -56 food was burned because hungry people didn't have the money to buy it, and all the rest that took place under that Republican rule. Well, the Republicans and their million- aire backers said there was nothing to be done about it at all, but just to wait. They said that Government action couldn't lick the depression and create employment. But the people didn't setde for that. They put the Democratic Party in power. And we licked the depression. Then we set out to do something about security. You remember what the Repub- lican millionaires said to that. "The poor will be always with us," they said. But the Democratic Party didn't settle for that, either. We passed unemployment com- pensation and old-age insurance. We pro- vided Federal assistance for old-age pensions and aid to dependent children and to the blind. We passed measures to protect farm income. We got a start on slum clearance and on health programs. In short, we put a good solid floor under family income and living standards — which in the Republican days could go down to zero without anybody in Washington car- ing a hoot about it. Then came World War II, and they said we couldn't possibly fight the Japanese and the Germans without going bankrupt. But we won the war and came out with a stronger economy than ever before. For the first time in history, my friends, a major war was not allowed to be followed by a major depression. At the end of the war the Republicans said we couldn't provide 60 million jobs. But we did it. We now have over 62 mil- lion people employed in this great country. By 1950, before the present defense pro- gram was launched, we were setting new records by almost every measure of prosperity you want to use. There were more people at work, more things being produced, more 829 [293] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents purchasing power in the hands of the people, higher corporation profits. And, of special interest to Hartford, there was more insur- ance in force. You know that some of the insurance com- panies fought bitterly against social security in the early days with the old shopworn cry that this was socialism. Now they'll all admit, I believe, that social security has actually helped them increase their business. Then came a national emergency, and the great economic strength of this country was really shown. In 2 years we launched a mili- tary buildup of tremendous proportions — and a buildup of our basic economic capacity on a scale never before matched. All this was carried on without reducing the stand- ard of living or the real income of the average American one iota. The Republicans are saying we can't afford this kind of military program. I say, thank God we have built the kind of economy that enabled us to carry out this tremendous de- fense program without any real strain on the economy. There have been no real sacrifices, except for the men and women in Korea and their families at home. Their sacrifices have been great — many of them very great indeed. This has saddened all of us. But those sacri- fices are being made to defend this country against Communist aggression. Our men are fighting in Korea so that we will not have to fight in the United States. We are fight- ing to prevent the untold horrors of a third world war. If we can do that, it will be mankind's greatest victory for peace. It cer- tainly ill behooves those of us who are left at home, with our families intact, to com- plain about the effect of the defense program onus. We have had some inflation, which was unfortunate. Part of it was inevitable; but a big part of it was due simply to the fact that the Republicans in Congress gutted the price control laws in order to let the special in- terests make a killing. We've had higher taxes, which we've been able to pay out of higher earnings. The Republicans have tried to make you think that high taxes are a crime. But you've been buying something with your taxes more precious than anything you can buy in the marketplace. You've been buying the kind of military strength without which we could not hope to prevent a third world war. And if you don't buy that strength with taxes, you have to borrow and add to the National debt. The Democrats just don't believe in adding to our debts when we don't have to do it. I've covered in a few words the story of 20 years of Democratic government. It's a story of progress from beginning to end. Nobody has summed it up better than the Republican candidate for President in his acceptance speech at the Chicago convention. This is what he said: "We are now at the moment of history when, under God, this Nation of ours has become the mightiest tem- poral power and the mightiest spiritual force on earth." And what do the Republicans say about this? They say: "It's time for a change." Now, my friends, maybe that's an appeal- ing slogan. I know many a baseball fan who was rooting for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series just because the Yankees had won too many times. It was time for a change, they thought. But you're not rooting at a ball game when you go to the polls on November 4. This isn't a ball game. And it isn't a beauty con- test. This is your bread and butter. This is your chance for world peace. No party is entitled to power just because it lost too many elections in the past. Now, the Republicans lost those elections. They lost because they've put in 20 years of blind, thoughtless opposition to almost every- thing the Democratic Party has done to help the ordinary citizen. They lost because they've been dominated by special privilege, by the lobbies — because they've always voted with the special inter- ests and against the welfare of the people. They lost because they've been against 830 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [293] world cooperation, against a healthy foreign trade, against aid to other peoples around the world. They lost because they've been against minorities of all kinds, against the immigra- tion into this country of Jews and Catholics, against equality of opportunity. Now, I don't mean that all Republicans are against all these things. All of us know a few Republicans who are progressive about some things, and some of them are from up here in New England. But those Repub- licans are a pretty lonesome group these days. I understand that there's still one New Eng- lander left on the Republican candidate's train, but just look who surrounds him. Every other berth on that train is filled by someone from the mossback, dinosaur, reac- tionary wing of the Republican Party — men who represent big money, the men who want to turn the clock back to 1896. A couple of days ago, one of the Republi- can candidate's advisers riding on his train said that — and I quote — "The General's compromises are all behind him." This was reported by a correspondent who works for a paper that has endorsed the Republican can- didate, so I guess you can believe what he said. When I first called attention to the way the Republican candidate was compromising, some of the Eastern papers accused me of slinging mud. Now you don't have to have it direct from the candidate's train. Maybe the correspondent thought his re- port would sound like good news. The candidate was at last through compromising. But the plain fact is, the candidate doesn't have much left to compromise. Let me run down some of the list. The candidate has compromised on for- eign policy. Down in Illinois 2 weeks ago, when he traveled with some of the most dan- gerous isolationists in this country, he talked a straightout isolationist line. He sneered at everything that's been done in Europe — even the things that he had a part in doing. He says our policies in Europe have been a fail- ure. Senator Taft has him committed to slashing the budget with which we carry on our foreign policy. He has compromised on national defense. First, he talked glibly about a $40 billion cut in the budget. Now, Senator Taft has said he and the candidate were agreed on a $20 billion cut — which would be enough to wreck our national defense program. He has compromised on Korea. He has said we were right to go into Korea, but he's made vague promises about how he'll bring the boys back home. He has even criticized us for entering into truce negotiations, but what would he be saying if we weren't doing everything we could to end the fighting? Now I want to say to you that he has also stated that he knows a panacea that will cure the Korean situation. He and one of his snollygoster foreign state advisers has said that he knows how to do that job. Now he has been my military adviser ever since I appointed him Chief of Staff of the Army, and I will say to you right here, if he knows a remedy and a method for that situation, it is his duty to come and tell me what it is— and save lives — right now. He has compromised every principle of personal loyalty by abetting the scurrilous big-lie attack on Gen. George C. Marshall. General Marshall was his own commanding officer in World War II. General Marshall stands in a class by himself as a patriot de- voted to the service of his country. The Republican candidate did have a few sentences in defense of General Marshall included in a draft of his speech in Milwau- kee. But at the demand of Senator McCar- thy, he struck those sentences out, and he has uttered no word in defense of General Mar- shall since. Instead of sticking by that great commander, instead of sticking by his friends, he joined hands in public with the Senator who defamed General Marshall. And he recommended that the Senator — along with other Republicans who have joined in the use of the big-lie technique on General Marshall — he recommended that 831 [293] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents that Senator be reelected to the United States Senate. I never heard of anything as awful as that in my life. I stand by my friends. Only this week, the Republican candidate compromised with your property. He pledged his influence to give away the off- shore oil resources which the Supreme Court has said are the property of every citizen in the United States. He even said that if you kept your property, that would be a shoddy deal. Let me read you what a Republican Sena- tor, who is a great lawyer and who himself comes from a coastal State, thinks about that. That Senator is Wayne Morse of Oregon, who says, and I quote: "It is a sad thing that Eisenhower in ap- parent ignorance of United States Supreme Court decisions has been taken in by the selfish interests of Americans who seek to steal the tidelands oil belonging to all the people of the United States. ... It is in- excusable from the standpoint of national defense to support the oil lobby on this issue." I think Senator Morse gives the candidate a little too much credit. I think the candi- date knows full well whom the Supreme Court has said these lands belong to. Senator Morse said that the candidate's political expediency may win him the votes of certain coastal States on this issue. But I say that for every vote he gets in those oil- rich coastal States, he deserves to lose 10 votes in the other 45 States of the Union, in- cluding Connecticut — including Connecti- cut because it's your property that he's trying to trade away for votes. Yes, it may be that the Republican candi- date's compromises are all behind him. There's not much left to compromise. I have nothing but sympathy for those Republicans who supported the candidate be- fore the Chicago convention. I know they went to Europe because they were looking for a man of principle. I urge them to look again 4 years from now, and to look next time among the great civilians in this coun- try— men whose records tell us where they stand, men who have proved they are too strong to be led around by lobbies in fields where they are not informed. We have such a man this time as the can- didate of the Democratic Party. He has been as clear and consistent in his speeches as the Republican candidate has been compromis- ing. Adlai Stevenson in this campaign has not sacrificed principle for political expedi- ency— no matter how many votes such sacri- fices might bring him. Adlai Stevenson just isn't that kind of man. He isn't made that way. And for those of you who still want some- thing of a change in Washington, don't worry about Adlai Stevenson. He'll bring new youth and new energy to the Office of the Presidency. He'll protect the gains we've made and build upon them. He is the finest young leader our party has produced in a generation, and he was chosen spontaneously by the Democrats from all over the country who were looking for outstanding leader- ship. I want a change, too. If I hadn't, I would have stayed there myself. But I want a change, my friends, that will not destroy all the good we've done. I know that on November the 4th you're going to look where your own interests lie, you're going to make a choice between the character of the men. You're not going to vote Republican be- cause of what little brass glitter still shows under the tarnish of the candidate's com- promises. You're not going to vote Repub- lican just out of sympathy for a party which has been out of office for 20 years because it hasn't made itself fit to govern. You're going to vote the Democratic ticket and elect Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man President and Vice President of the United States. And you're going to give them the kind of congressional leadership that only men like Bill Benton, Abe Ribicoff, Tom Dodd, and Stanley Pribyson can provide. Vote in your own interests. 832 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 16 [294] note: The President spoke at 12:40 p.m. from a speaker's stand erected in front of the Hartford Times Building. During his remarks he referred to, among others, Senator William Benton of Con- necticut, Representative Abraham Ribicoff, Demo- cratic candidate for the position left vacant by the death of Senator Brien McMahon of Connecticut (see Item 219), Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army (1 939-1 945), Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. The President also referred to Thomas J. Dodd and Stanley J. Pribyson, Democratic candi- dates for Representative from Connecticut. 294 Address at the Armory in Manchester, New Hampshire. October x6, 1952 I APPRECIATE very much that most cordial welcome. I appreciate also the wel- come which I received out on the street. I don't think I ever had a more cordial wel- come in my whole political career than I had here tonight. Now, I don't know whether it is necessary for me to explain to you that I am on a cam- paign trip. I've been talking to New Eng- land voters all day, asking them to vote for Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. These are outstanding men — men of whom the Democratic Party is extremely proud. And they have carried on an outstanding campaign. They have presented their posi- tion on the issues very clearly. You know where they stand, and you know they have the courage of their convictions. They don't tell you that they believe in one thing in one part of the United States, and then tell you they believe in something else somewhere else. Their convictions are straight down the line on the Democratic platform. I believe that Stevenson and Sparkman are going to win this election. I believe that, because I have faith in the American people. I believe the American people will vote for men who have the courage and the honesty to tell them the truth. I hope that you people in New Hampshire will send some good Democrats to Congress this year. Stevenson and Sparkman will need men like Peter Poirier and John Guay. They will need men like that to help them look after your welfare and the welfare of the whole American people. I would also like mighty well to see you elect Bill Craig as your Democratic Governor here in New Hampshire. I have been greatly encouraged by the reports I have had of the favorable prospect for that happy event. This is going to be a very critical election, my friends — perhaps the most critical in our generation. I have said today that I think it probably is the most critical election since the Civil War. In some ways, I think it is of even greater importance to New England than it is to the rest of the country. That is because New England is one of the most vulnerable areas in the country in regard to unemployment. The Democratic Party is the party of full employment. We believe in full employ- ment and we believe in doing something about it. That is why we are deeply concerned about the unemployment you have been having for some months in certain of your manufactur- ing centers here in New England. In most of the country, production and employment are at a high level — one of the highest in his- tory. But in your textile and shoe manufac- turing centers, including Manchester, there has been a measure of unemployment that we have not yet been able to cure. I understand there has been some improve- ment in the employment situation in Man- chester, and that this is no longer considered an area of heavy unemployment. In addi- tion, I am told that prospects for the com- 833 [294] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents ing winter are still better. This is good news, but it is not good enough. I want to talk to you tonight about the reasons for unemployment in New England, and what we can do to cure it. But before I get into that subject I want to say some- thing about our economy as a whole. As I have gone around the country, I have detected an undercurrent of uneasiness, in the minds of some people, about what is going to happen to our economy in the future. This concern is due in part to the flood of Republican propaganda about this being a "war-boom prosperity." This propa- ganda is entirely untrue. Our economy ought to do even better in the future than it is doing now under the heavy burdens and restrictions of our defense program. Our defense program, in reality, is holding us back. It is using up materials and man- power that could be used for other things we want and need. When we can lessen the defense burden in the future, we ought to be better off — not worse off — than we are now. Of course, there will be a period of adjust- ment from defense orders to civilian orders. There will be job changes and other changes. But we can handle this period of adjustment, if we have a Democratic administration in Washington that knows what to do. We can handle the transition if we have in Wash- ington an administration that knows how to put the resources of the Government into making that transition run smoothly. This is one of the questions you ought to be thinking about very hard at this election time. Which party do you think you can trust at the throttle of our economy in the period of change ? The Republican Party has never believed in using the resources of the Government to make the economy run properly. They were never willing to use the Government to pro- vide jobs when jobs were needed. They called that "interference with private enter- prise" and they called it "socialism." The reason for this Republican attitude is that the Republican Party is dominated by men who don't have to work for a living. These men regard jobs and wages as some- thing secondary to what they call the "in- terests of business." To them, wages are something that's paid out. To them, jobs and wages are entered on the cost side of the ledger, and the costs are something to be held down. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, is made up of common ordinary people. It's their party. They determine its policies. To them, wages are not a cost but a benefit. A job to them is not an expense — it's an income It's a matter of bread and butter, and it can be a matter of life and death, in some cases. The Democratic Party is committed to the objective of full employment. That's why the Democrats were put into office in 1932, and that's one of the big reasons why we have been kept in office ever since. Moreover, the Democrats have never been scared by phony slogans. If action is needed, and if the only way to take action is through the Government, then we'll act through the Government. The shopworn cries of so- cialism and national bankruptcy are not go- ing to make us sit still and twiddle our thumbs while we wait for something to come "around the corner." Let me tell you a story about the subject of full employment. During World War II, when I was in the United States Senate, some of us got the idea that it was not neces- sary to have a depression after that war, as we had had after every other big war in our history. So we drafted a bill which would establish a national policy of full employment, and set up the machinery to carry out that policy. What a furore we created! Why, the very idea was said to be immoral. The National Association of Manufacturers and the other big business organizations rolled out their propaganda machines. All the big guns that had been firing on the New Deal legislation ever since 1932 were hauled out again. They brought up all kinds of arguments 834 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [294] as to why full employment was a bad idea. They said people would lose their initiative if they could count on having full employ- ment. They said if everybody worked it might result in an unbalanced budget. One distinguished witness said it was good for business to have a "floating pool of unem- ployed." The president of the National Association of Manufacturers said that all the Govern- ment should do, in case of a depression, was to make contributions to the States, so that the unemployed could be carried on relief rolls. The NAM flooded the country with propa- ganda leaflets against the full employment bill. They saw that these leaflets got into the hands of schoolteachers, editors, radio commentators, and everybody else in a posi- tion to influence public opinion. They put out the same kind of smokescreen then that the same people are putting out now, in their effort to grab control of the Government in this election. One reactionary group, calling themselves the Committee for Constitutional Govern- ment— which specializes in calling progres- sive legislation communistic — put that label on the idea of full employment, too. And this refrain was picked up by other big busi- ness opponents of the bill. That same committee's literature also at- tacked the goal of full employment as — quote — "sentimental humanitarianism." Right after the fight started, I became Vice President and then President, and I continued to help whenever I could. Finally, in 1946, an act was passed and I signed it. But the opposition had succeeded in get- ting the act watered down. The title had been changed from the Full Employment Act of 1946 to just the Employment Act of 1946. And the right-to-a-job idea had been killed and the rest of the provisions had been changed accordingly. The men you want to beware of are those men who took the "full" out of "full employ- ment." They're the men you don't want in power. They're the men who advocate a floating pool of unemployed, because that keeps wages down and costs down. They're the men who think it's bad for your initiative if you can secure a job. They think that the idea of full employ- ment is just sentimental humanitarianism, and that sentiment and humanity have no place in government. You know who those men are. They're the National Association of Manufacturers and other big business organizations, and the Republicans in Congress who vote as those organizations dictate. The Republicans in the House of Repre- sentatives voted almost 2 to 1 against the Full Employment Act of 1946. The Repub- licans provided 80 percent of the House vote against the bill on final passage. When we finally got this law through Congress, it was not as strong as it should have been; but we've worked with what we had. Twice a year I've sent an Economic Report to the Congress, and in those reports I've set higher and higher goals for employ- ment and production and purchasing power. The Republicans have always sneered at those goals. You remember how they hooted at the idea of 60 million jobs. Now we have 62 million jobs. And the Republi- cans still can't understand how it happened. It's just about to drive them crazy. What the big businessmen have never been able to understand is that full employment is good for them, too. So are good farm prices. When people are working at decent wages, and when farmers have a decent in- come, they can buy the things that business has to sell. When people are not working, they can't buy. At the bottom of the Republican depres- sion, wages were about as low as they could get. So were farm prices. And the net losses of the corporations in this country, taken all together, were $3 billion. Now, in 1950, when we had full employ- ment, corporations had to pay high taxes, 835 [294] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents it's true. But they still made profits of $40 billion. Even after the taxes they scream about, they made profits of $21 billion. And they paid out $9 billion in dividends. Business has never done so well as it has under the Democratic policies in Washing- ton. Not only are workers and farmers better off, but corporations are better off, too. And that's fine with us. We're all for keeping business profitable. But we don't want to do it by applying the false and vicious notion that you have to have a floating pool of unemployed. We're not only sentimental and humanitarian — as the so-called Com- mittee for Constitutional Government com- plained to its readers — but we're hardheaded as well. But do you think the Republicans have learned anything all these years? They just haven't learned a thing. Now, you can read their platform clear through, in this year 1952, and you won't find a word about full employment. Do you know what it says instead? It says that under the Democrats, initiative has been deadened, invention has been discouraged, and self-reliance has been weakened. It says that under the Democrats free enterprise has been wrecked. Well, I have just been across the country and back again, and all I can say is — it's a most wonderful wreck! In fact, my friends, it's the most prosperous looking wreck I have ever seen. I want to ask you a question. Has the Republican candidate for President said any- thing about full employment? I don't know. I am not sure he has even heard of it, yet. And if he is like the other economic thinkers in his party, it's probably one of the things he will want to change. I started out by saying that New England has some special problems. There are two big reasons why industry in this part of the country is at a competitive disadvantage. One is the lack of cheap power. A manu- facturer in this county gets a bill for elec- tric power 71 percent higher than a manu- facturer in Chattanooga, Tennessee, gets for the same amount of power — and 66 percent higher than a manufacturer in Spokane, Washington. The housewife using 250 kilo- watt hours a month pays $27 more a year than the Chattanooga housewife. Yet the Merrimack River flows right through this county, and less than one-third of the hydroelectric possibilities of this great river basin have been developed. In the Tennessee Valley and in the North- west the cheap power has been the outgrowth of the great multipurpose development of the Tennessee and the Columbia River basins. These developments serve flood control, transportation, recreation, and many other purposes besides just generating power. Now, I'm not going to say that a Tennessee Valley Authority or a Columbia River De- velopment is just what you want in New England. They've worked extremely well where they are. But, in the interest of your own welfare, you ought to study carefully those two programs, and any other plans that may be proposed. Then you need to arrive at some plan that will result in the full development of your river resources. And if selfish interests are standing in the way, then you've got to insist that those selfish interests stand aside, for the welfare of the whole of New England. I know that the study of the New Eng- land economy made under the auspices of the Council of Economic Advisers has been use- ful to you. I am sure that the survey now being made by the New York-New Eng- land Inter- Agency Committee which I estab- lished will further point the way toward full development of your resources. The second thing that puts New Eng- land at a competitive disadvantage is the operation of the Taft-Hartley Act which was passed by the Republican "do-nothing" 80th Congress. That's one of the things they did. That Congress spent its time doing things to you, and not for you. That act has virtually stopped the orga- nization of unions in some areas of the coun- try. The result is that wages in those areas 836 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 16 [294] are lagging behind, and manufacturers there have an unfair competitive advantage over the manufacturers in New England. In the long run, a situation like this is bad for the whole country. We cannot build lasting prosperity on depressed wages. The Taft-Hartley Act is not an academic matter in New England. It's hurting you badly; it's hurting you now. You ought to be leading the fight to get rid of it. The Republicans have done many other things to shackle the economy of New Eng- land. They have cut appropriations for the enforcement of the Walsh-Healey Act and the minimum wage law, which are impor- tant weapons against unfair wage competi- tion that hurts New England. A majority of them have joined in the fight against the St. Lawrence Seaway and Power project, which would bring cheap power and new industry to New England. Now, I am very much interested in the power developments of this great Nation. We have a Northwest power pool on the Columbia River. We have a Southwest power pool on the Colorado River. We have a Central power pool on the Red River and the Arkansas River, and the rivers in north- west Arkansas and southwest Missouri. We have the Tennessee Valley in the Southeast power pool. What I have been trying to get for this part of the world is a Northeast power pool made up of the proper develop- ments of your rivers, and the St. Lawrence, and the Bay of Fundy project, and then you wouldn't be at a disadvantage. Now, my friends, we need to break up the unholy alliance between the special inter- ests and the Republican Party that has stifled the growth of this historic section of the country. We need to do that, and we have got to take steps to do it; and you have got to do it yourselves, because the power is in your hands. We need to keep the country in the hands of people who believe in full employment. We need to keep the country in the hands of people who reject the notion that floating pools of unemployed are good for business. We need to keep the country in the hands of people who are not afraid of a little hu- manitarianism in government — even a little sentiment, if you will. When the time comes to make a switch from large-scale defense work to large-scale production of consumer goods, you will be mighty glad that you have Adlai Stevenson in the White House. You'll be glad you have somebody there who understands the nature of the American economy, who be- lieves in government with a heart, who be- lieves in full employment. My friends, I am going up and down this country, not that I am running for office, or that I expect to gain anything by it but the welfare of this great Nation. When it comes to the 20th of January, I will have been in elective public office for 30 years — 30 years I have been in elective public office. I was elected the first time in November 1922. I have given all I have into public service in every office that I have held, and it finally got me into more trouble than any other man in the history of the country has ever been in — for the last 7 years. What I am doing is going up and down the country, as I started to say, to get you people to think. I want you to think for yourselves. I want you to study the record. I want you to consider the things which I have said to you here tonight. I want you to consider them in the light of your own welfare. You yourselves have the power to do the things that are necessary to put this great section of the country back where it belongs — in the forefront of the industrial part of this country. You can do it. You can do it. But you can't do it by letting some- body else do your thinking for you. You have got to think for yourselves. All I want you to do is just to study the record. I want you to know the record of the people in the Congress, the Democratic side and the Re- publican side, and I want you to see what the policies we have tried to pursue amount to, so far as your welfare is concerned. If you do that, I have no doubt but what 837 [294] Oct. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents you will do the right thing by yourselves. You will do the right thing for the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. You will do the right thing for the welfare of the whole free world. You will do the right thing — with us, who are trying by direct action to head off communism in the world — and that is the only way you can head it off. I hope now — I sincerely hope now that you will go home and do some thinking, and do a little praying along with it, for the welfare of this great Nation. And I hope that on election day you will go to the polls with your mind made up to do what is best for the country. And if you do that, Adlai Stevenson will be the next President of the United States. note: The President spoke at 9:05 p.m. in the Na- tional Guard Armory, Manchester, N.H. During his remarks he referred to Peter Poirier and John Guay, Democratic candidates for Representative from New Hampshire, and William H. Craig, Democratic candi- date for Governor of New Hampshire. The address was broadcast. 295 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. October 17, 1952 [1.] Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Rear platform, 8 a.m.) Well, I see that New England has the same habit that we have in Missouri. You get up at the right time of day. I took a walk around your city this morning, and I cer- tainly wish I had time to stay here and see it all; but as you know, I am out on a program to help elect the Democratic ticket this fall, so I can't stay in Portsmouth very long, as much as I would like to. I expect to come back here, though, when I get out of the great white jail, and maybe stay for as long as I want to. You have some very fine men on the Demo- cratic ticket in this town in this great State of New Hampshire. For Congress, you have just met the candidate for Congress — Peter Poirier; and you have met your candi- date for Governor — William Craig. And I am delighted to know you have a good Democrat ready to take over from poor Sher- man Adams, who is running himself ragged losing battles to the Old Guard on that Re- publican train. That is just too bad. The Democratic Party has at the head of its ticket this year two of the finest men in public life today: Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They both can stand on their proven records of public service. They are men of honor and integrity. They are skilled in the ways of civil government. And from the very beginning of this cam- paign, they have been giving the people the facts and the truth about the issues in this election. You know, it has been exceedingly difficult to get the issues before the people. That is one of the principal reasons why I am out. I am trying to put the issues up to you, so you can do a little thinking in your own interest. The campaign, when it first started out from the other side of the fence, was one of extraneous things that had nothing to do with the issues in this campaign. I am sorry to say that the Republican candidate for President has not given the people a very straight story on the issues. It has really surprised me to find the General treating some of these problems with such careless- ness about the facts, when actually he should — and I believe he does — know better. Take the General's statements about Gov- ernment spending and taxes, as an example. Right here in Portsmouth you have the Navy Yard, so you know at first hand the great cost involved in running this installa- tion to help keep our fleet in good shape. And the General knows that, too, from his years in the Army — and what it costs to keep the military forces in condition. When I was making budgets, I never had any in- 838 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 17 [295] structions from the General when he was Chief of Staff to cut anything. He always wanted more money. Since he has become a candidate for office, he has been talking about budget cuts that could only mean gravely weakening our na- tional defense. And he knows that. He first talked about a $40 billion cut. Now he is talking about a $20 billion cut; and maybe next week he will cut it to $10 billion — and maybe next week he will call for an increase; but either one, a $10 or $20 billion cut would just spell disaster for the military and for- eign aid programs on which we depend for our own survival as a free nation. The Gen- eral knows all this. He was faced with these very same problems only recently, when he was giving great service to this country as a military leader. But apparendy the General is now convinced that in politics the best approach is to tell the people only the things they want to hear, and to make any kind of promises if he thinks he can get a few votes out of it. I believe the General has made a big mis- take. The people are smarter than he thinks. They want the whole story. They want to make up their own minds on the basis of facts; and that is the reason I am going around over the country telling them what the facts are. That is why the people of this country are going to vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman this Novem- ber. They are going to send to Washing- ton, men who will give them the facts, and tell the people straight from the shoulder what they are going to be able to do on the basis of those facts. In your own interests — now, if you will do a little thinking, just in your own interest study the record. Get the facts for your- selves. Go home and study them and then make up your own mind. Make up your own mind, then vote for the best interests of yourself. Vote for the best interests and welfare of the greatest Republic in the his- tory of the world, and vote for the keeping of the free world free. That is what it amounts to. This is the most important election since the Civil War, and that is the reason I am out trying to give you the facts, trying to get you to think for yourselves and get the facts on the situation. And when you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will elect the Democratic ticket from top to bottom, and you will have 4 years of good govern- ment, and safety for this great Nation of ours. [2.] SOMERSWORTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE (Municipal Building, 9:45 a.m.) I am certainly happy to be here this morn- ing, and to be greeted by all this wonderful crowd here. I understand that Strafford County has gone Democratic in every elec- tion since 1932, and I think that is a won- derful thing. I wish we could persuade all the rest of the counties in New Hampshire to do the same thing this year. I am more than appreciative of the fact that you voted for me in 1948. I needed it then and I need it now, because I want you to send a suc- cessor to the White House who will carry on the policies the Democratic Party has stood for during the last 20 years — Adlai Stevenson. I have just had a wonderful visit with a very great friend of mine, with whom I served in the United States Senate, Fred Brown. Fred used to sit by me in the Sen- ate— or I used to sit by him, whichever way you want to put it. I have always been proud to know him, because he has one of the best records of public service of any man that I know. I told him this morning that I had made his Senate speech on public power and public utilities here in Manchester last night. He made the best speech on that subject that ever was made in the Senate, and it carried the bill through the Senate. I never heard him make but one speech, and that was it; but that accomplished more in the public service than any other one thing that I think Fred ever did. He has been mayor of this town, United States attorney for New Hampshire, Gover- nor of New Hampshire, Comptroller Gen- 839 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents eral of the United States, and a member of the United States Tariff Commission, and the best United States Senator this great State ever had — and I say that advisedly. Fred Brown represented New Hampshire to the best advantage in the world when he was in the Senate. He served his country well. He never showed any sign of a nar- row sectional attitude. For that reason, Fred Brown showed exactly what a good Demo- crat could do in the public service. As far back as 1934, Fred Brown was fighting for the St. Lawrence Seaway project. He knew that New Hampshire profited from every undertaking that added materially to the welfare of all New England and all the Na- tion. Fred Brown voted in the interests of all the people of this country. That, my friends, is the mark of statesmanship, and it is the philosophy that moves the whole Democratic Party. I remember how Fred Brown fought for the regulation of the public utility holding companies. That is the speech I was telling you about that I made. I remember how he stood up against the greed and selfishness of the power lobby, and the other special interests that try to milk the public for every cent they can. But Fred Brown knew that the people have to look to their Government for protection. And it is due to men like him that the Demo- cratic Party looks out for the people. That is the policy of the Democratic Party. That is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Demo- cratic Party is working in the interests of all the plain everyday people of this country. With us the people come first. With the Republicans property and profits come first, ahead of the people. The Republican Party is the party of the great money interests — the big banks, the insurance companies, the utilities, the railroads, the real estate lobby, and all the rest. These are the boys that pay the bills for the GOP, and they are the ones that call the tune for the GOP. That is why this election is so important for you, and so important for the whole country. You must remember that the power of the Government reposes in you, and when you neglect your duty, when you don't register and vote on election day, you are throwing away the greatest privilege in the history of the world that you fought for on a dozen different occasions, when you ne- glect it. Now in 1948 only 51 percent of the peo- ple entitled to vote voted in this great coun- try of ours. I think that is a disgrace. I am going around the country trying to give you something to think about. I want you to in- form yourselves. I want you to find out what this is all about. I want you to know the issues. The Republicans don't want you to know the issues. I want you to know them, and I want you to make up your mind in your own interest. If you will just do that, I haven't any doubt in the world that we will have Adlai Steven- son in the White House, and 4 more years of good government for this great country. [3.] Dover, New Hampshire (City Hall, 10:10 a.m.) I can't tell you how much I appreciate these early morning cordial welcomes I am getting here in New Hampshire. I never saw any- thing like it. You are the most hospitable people I ever saw, and I am taking Missouri into consideration when I say that, too. I don't know whether you are right sure why I am going around all over the country this way, so I am going to let you in on the secret. I am campaigning for the Demo- cratic ticket. I have been told by the people here who ought to know, that this country has gone Democratic right straight along since 1932, and I want you to keep it up for the next 20 years. You have got a slate of candidates running here in this State that impresses me immense- ly. I have been riding with Peter Poirier and with your candidate for Governor, Mr. William Craig, and I am highly impressed 840 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [295] with these gentlemen. I think New Hamp- shire would be much to the good if they elected people like that to the Congress and to the Governor's chair. We have a great candidate for President this year, too — Adlai Stevenson. He is a fine and able man, and he will give this country good government and real leader- ship. Adlai Stevenson has served as the Governor of his great State. He has proved his talents as a civilian administrator. He knows the problems of the people, and that is one of the most important things you want to be sure of when you elect a President. His experience in Illinois shows that he knows how to make the Government work for the people. More than that, he is a man you can trust. I have been in politics for 40 years or more — have been in elective public office for 30 years — and in all those years I have found that you can always count on one sure thing. The Republicans will spend 4 years in Wash- ington building up a bad record of votes against the interests of all the people, and the Democrats have to go there and straighten them out. Now for the last 20 years the Republicans haven't been able to fool anybody, but every time election time rolls around, they try every trick in the book to cover up the record they have made in the Congress, and fool the public into giving them 4 more years to work for the special interests. That is what they are trying to do now, they are trying to turn the country over to people who want to exploit the everyday man. They don't like to see prosperity under the Democrats. It's just about to drive them crazy. They have resorted to all of the oldest tricks in this game. They have realized that their record in Congress is so bad — so much against the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Fair Deal — that their party wouldn't have a chance unless they could ride into office on the military reputation of a national hero. That is why they picked a great general for their candidate for President. But I think they made a great mistake in doing that, because it has raised a whole new issue in this campaign. It has raised the issue of whether we can afford to have a professional military man at the head of our civilian government of this great Republic. You know, the Constitution was very par- ticular to set up a government divided into three sections: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And they were very careful to see that the civilian executive of this great Republic of ours is the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces; and that is so a man on horse- back couldn't take the country over. We have only had two professional sol- diers as Presidents, and neither one of them did very well. I think that is to be expected, because, you see, there is very little in com- mon between running a civilian government and running an army. Now the President of the United States — I have said many a time — has to be the best public relations man in the country, because he has to get all sorts of people to agree to go along on a situation that is best for the whole country. He spends most of his time argu- ing with people and laying the facts before people to get them to do what they ought to do without being talked to. Well, a soldier has the habit of saying, "This is it. You go and do it," and if you don't do it you can get court-martialed. But you can't court-martial a Secretary of State or a Secretary of the Treasury of the Gov- ernment of the United States; you have to persuade them that that is the way it ought to be done. That is what I spend my time doing. That is what you pay me for. That is the reason I am out now, doing a public relations job, to bring home to you your responsibilities. Our professional Army officers are trained to fight and to command. They are trained to give orders and to follow orders. They are trained in the arts of war, that is the way they ought to be, but they are not trained in 841 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents what it takes to run a civilian government. And while they have plenty of cares and wor- ries of their own, they never get much experi- ence with the problems of people in civilian life. Now, when you take a man who has spent his whole life in the Army and put him in politics, he's just like a fish out of water. It would be just the same as if I would take the mayor of my hometown and put him in command of NATO in France. He wouldn't be any more at sea than Eisenhower is right now. That is what has happened already to the Republican candidate for President, and proves how true my statements are. In just 3 months he has let the Old Guard Repub- lican politicians take him over. They are writing his marching orders and he is carry- ing them out — just like he used to carry out mine, when he was working for me as Commander in Chief. If he has gone this far just since July, I would hate to think what would happen during 4 years in the White House. If he ever got to be President, you can't tell who would call the signals, or what they might give him to do, or get him into. We do know what happened the last time we had a professional general for President. That was Ulysses S. Grant. He was a good general. He was an honorable man. But the politicians were too smart for him, and he made a mess of his administration, much to the regret of everybody that loved him. I really cannot think of a worse combina- tion in the White House than a professional soldier, surrounded and controlled by the Old Guard reactionary Republicans who work for the big lobbies in this country. That is not the kind of government you want. That is not the kind that will do you any good, and I am advising you as I have advised everybody where I have been — to use your head, inform yourselves, get the records of the Republicans in the Congress and the Democrats in Congress, and see which one of those parties has voted for your interests, and for the welfare of this great Nation. That's all I am asking you to do. I am not out here trying to tell you what to do. I am trying to give you the issues, asking you to inform yourselves on what the issues are. And then you won't have anything to do but vote in your own interests and vote for the welfare of this great Republic, and vote for the welfare of the free world as a whole. That is your duty. That is your job. If you do what I am telling you to do, I know you will only do one thing: you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House and you will elect this great man here Governor of New Hampshire. [4.] Rockingham, New Hampshire (Rear platform, 10:55 a-m-) We have had a wonderful drive this morn- ing around over this part of New Hamp- shire, and I never saw so many people up so early in the morning as I have seen this morning. And I want to say to you that I am highly appreciative of the courtesies that have been shown me here in this great State. I have been trying to get people to do a little thinking, and the best way in the world that you can show whether you believe what I have been saying or not is to put New Hampshire in the Democratic column on election day, and that will please everybody. [5.] Exeter, New Hampshire (Rear plat- form, 11:18 a.m.) Now I see that a great many of you young people are out here to have a good time, and I am glad to have you have a good time. But I have something to say to you that will cause you to think, I am sure, and I would like for you to listen so you can do a little thinking. And then if you want to holler for Ike, I will be glad for you to do it, be- cause I like Ike, too — but I like him in the Army. I only wish I had time to stop and see your city and your famous academy. I guess you know that I am on a campaign trip, and that 842 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [295] doesn't leave me much time to stay any one place for very long. I am working, of course, as hard as I can for a Democratic victory in November. I am doing that because I honestly believe that this is one of the most important elections we have ever had — im- portant for the country's future, and it is im- portant for the future of the whole world, and it is important for your future — and that is the reason I want you to think about it. You yourselves will be running the country in the next generation, and if you inform yourselves completely on the necessities of how a government should be run, then you will be ready to take over. It doesn't make any difference which party you take over with — if you do take over — you want to have yourself informed so that you can do a job that will continue the greatest Republic in the history of the world through the greatest period that we are now faced with. That is the reason I am anxious for you to inform yourselves, and I want you to listen to me, and then do all the yelling you want to — I won't care. I have been riding around over this part of New Hampshire with the two Democrats who have just been introduced to you. I have been highly impressed with those two gentlemen, and I think they will make you good public servants. That is Peter Poirier and William Craig, your candidate for Gov- ernor. And on our national ticket we have for President a man who is one of the greatest young men to come forward for public recog- nition by a party in my recollection since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt — and that is Adlai Stevenson of Chicago. And John Sparkman for Vice President — he is a fine man. I served in the Senate while he was serving in the House. He has been in the Senate for quite some time and he has a record that is beyond reproach. Now these two candidates — the finest any party ever put before the public — are men of proven character and experience, with excellent records of public service. I hope you have been listening to Governor Steven- son's speeches, or reading them in the papers. They show a man who is honest with him- self and with the people. Adlai Stevenson is talking sense to the American people, just as he promised to do when he was drafted for the nomination. He has spoken out on all the issues. He has taken a stand, without fear or favor toward any group or individual. I only wish his opponent was talking like Stevenson is. I wish the General were stick- ing to his principles and standing by his record. He is not. And this to me has saddened me very much, and been a great disappointment for me, because I appointed the General Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I put him in charge of NATO because I thought he was best fitted for that job — and he is. He did a good job. I am saying nothing about the General as a gen- eral. But I think that he is an amateur in politics. It would be just the same if I would take one of you boys and send you over there to command NATO. You would have just as much idea of what was going on as to take a general who spent 40 years in the Army and put him right in the midst of a political party that is torn all to pieces. He doesn't know which way to turn. I feel sorry for him. The good work that he has done in build- ing up the forces of Europe against commu- nism is one of the reasons I once thought he would make a good President. I think it is also the reason so many liberal Republicans asked him to make a fight for their party's nomination. Now, just 3 months later, he has laid aside all the things we thought he stood for and believed in. He has sur- rendered to Senator Taft. He has swallowed Taft's isolationist foreign policy in the guise of a budget cut. Taft has taken him com- pletely into camp. He is doing exactly what Taft wants him to do. The Old Guard ver- sion of isolationism is now what he is for. What has become of the great victory the liberal Republicans thought they had won at Chicago? I will tell you. They have been kicked off the platform and into the bushes. 843 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents Senator Taft, whom they defeated, is now enthroned as the master of the General's house. I am not given ordinarily to quoting columnists. You know I have a yen on for most columnists, but I have to quote one this morning. Walter Lippmann in his column put the matter so well that I want to read to you what he has to say: "It would be helpful, I think" — now this is Walter Lippmann speaking, in his column in the Herald-Tribune of October 16 — that is very recent, you can get it and read it for yourself, if you don't believe what I am telling you. "It would be helpful, I think, if the General would now consider," says Walter Lippmann, "the anguish of his friends. Then he would take the risk of making at least one small public demonstra- tion of how, as the leader of his party, he would resist pressure rather than yield to it. This would buck up his friends, would fortify them and sustain them against the growing suspicion in the country that that man Stevenson may not only be speaking in the accents of greatness, but that he may per- haps embody some of the qualities of a great American leader." Now Mr. Lippmann, as is his custom, I think, fails to give "that man Stevenson" due credit. And I am afraid that Lippmann will wait in vain for a convincing demonstra- tion that the Republican candidate can stand up for the principles we once thought he held. I don't think he is going to come out and say that. It is too bad. It is a tragedy to see this man, so competent in the military field, de- stroying his own reputation by cheap politics. But it is fortunate that this is happening during the campaign. We have learned exactly how he believes before it is too late, and we are fortunate in the fact that we have found real, constructive leadership in the Democratic Party. Now I want you boys to do a little study- ing. I am anxious for you boys — not the kind that you are used to — this is studying for citizenship. I want you to study just exactly what this great Government stands for. You know, you are a part and will be in control of the greatest Government in the history of the world. The President of the United States is the most powerful executive that has ever existed on earth. And if you have studied your history, you know there have been a great many of them. In order that the Government shall con- tinue to be yours when you come to the point where you can take it over, you must prepare yourselves. You must do some thinking for your own benefit and welfare. It won't hurt you — it will do you good. When you get to the point where I am, after you are 69 years old, you will be glad you have done it. I hope all of you will live to be 69. I hope you will have a chance to take part in your Government, locally, with the State, or in the Nation. I have been from precinct to President over the last 40 years, and I know what I am talking about. It is the greatest business in the world, this business of government. And the Gov- ernment is in the hands of the people who vote. And when they don't vote, and when they don't inform themselves, when they don't exercise their right to vote intelligendy and they get bad government, then they have nobody in the world to blame but them- selves. So do a little thinking. Go home and talk to your daddy and your mother, and find out just exactly what the situation is in this thing. And if you do that, in the next 4 years we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House, and a good government. [6.] Plaistow, New Hampshire, (Rear platform, 11:50 a.m.) I appreciate your coming down to the train to see me this morning. I have had a very pleasant morning in New Hampshire. It has been a pleasure to see and talk to the people. I wish I could stay longer, but I expect that you know I have got a busy schedule ahead of me. 844 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 17 [295] If somebody hasn't already whispered to you the secret of what I am doing out here, I will tell you that I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. You here in New Hampshire have some wonderful men running for office on the Democratic ticket in this State. I hope you will elect them. You have just been intro- duced to your candidate for Congress, Peter Poirier, and your candidate for Governor, William Craig. They are fine men. I have become very well acquainted with them on this trip around over your great State. I know you will make no mistake if you vote for them. As for our national ticket, I think Adlai Stevenson will be one of our greatest Presi- dents, if you elect him. He has had the experience. And I hope you have been fol- lowing his speeches. He is talking sense to the American people, just as he promised he would do when he was drafted for the nomi- nation. He is telling you just exactly where he stands on all the issues facing us today. He is showing real moral courage, the cour- age to resist pressures — the courage to speak his mind without fear or favor. And I think the people will reward him for it. Now he doesn't go down South and make one brand of speech because he thinks he might get votes down there, and then come back up North and make one exactly oppo- site to it because he thinks that will get votes. He says the same thing in Massachusetts and in North Carolina. And that is, my friends, a quality that you have to have when you are President of the United States. In the last 3 weeks I have traveled from coast to coast. I have seen a great part of our country, and I want to tell you one thing: This is a most prosperous land. The stand- ard of living all across America must be seen to be appreciated and believed. You see it especially in the children — well dressed, well fed, healthy looking children — in every town, in every State. They are the happiest and luckiest young people on the face of the earth today. You have no idea how happy they should be — if you had seen some of the things which I have seen in other countries. Children that haven't enough to eat, children that are bare- foot— that have no clothing that is warm enough in the wintertime — children that have rickets and everything else of that sort in these countries that have been overrun by this great war. And here we are, with plenty to eat, plenty to wear, and everything in the world that anybody could wish for. Yet, some of us are inclined to be selfish on that line, and not want to help those peo- ple who need help. I hope you are not in that frame of mind. I hope you will do your duty to help feed the people who are out of food, when you have more than you need. Of course, at almost every stop I have made, the local newspapers are put aboard the train. That has given me a chance to read what the Republican candidates are say- ing these days. I have been astonished to read that, according to the Republicans, the good conditions I have seen with my own eyes are a sham and a delusion. They say this country is going to wrack and ruin. They say we are bankrupt. They say all those children are bowed down under the weight of unbearable debt that will crush them and ruin their lives. One of the main themes of the Republi- can campaign this year is bankruptcy. It's the same song that Alf Landon used to sing, the same thing that Willkie used to talk about, and the same thing that Dewey fol- lowed me around the United States with in 1948 and talked about. As a matter of fact, you could take the Republican speeches for any of the last four campaigns, and they would read just about like most of the same speeches you are hear- ing today. I think they go and dig them up and say them over. All this talk about bankruptcy and economic disaster is just as phony this time as it was in all the past Republican cam- paigns. The American people know this. They can see for themselves that conditions 845 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents are prosperous, like I can — and just like you can. I don't believe the people are going to be fooled by scare words, slogans, and easy promises this year any more than they have in the past. I want you to think about these things. Think about them seriously. Think about what the Democratic Party has done for the welfare of this country in the last 20 years. And think about your own situation. If you will look at the record and think about it, I believe you will agree that the Democratic Party — which I head — has done a good job. And you will find that a majority of the Republicans have been against almost every- thing we have done for the benefit of the people. In the face of that record, I don't see how you can do anything except look at your own welfare carefully. Do a little thinking, and study the situation. Study the record — study your own condition — study the condition of the country — study the condition of the world. And then, if you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th, and you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States, and we will have 4 more years that are for the good of the world, for the good of the country, and for your own welfare and benefit. Thank you very much. [7.] Haverhill, Massachusetts (Platform in Railroad Square, 12:15 p.m.) I am very happy indeed to be able to stop in the "Queen Shoe City." I understand that your city has earned that name because of the skill of your workers, and they have every right to be proud of that accomplish- ment. I am out campaigning for the Democratic ticket, and I hope you will all vote for it. You have an excellent Democratic ticket here in this great State. You couldn't send a better man to the Senate than Jack Ken- nedy. He has already made a record as a legislator in the House, and he will make you an excellent Senator. Of course, I don't need to tell you about your own good Governor. He has shown you already what he can do, and I know you are going to put him back in the Governor's chair. The Democratic Party is very fortunate to have as its candidate for President one of the finest men in public life today — and that is Adlai Stevenson. He is well-qualified for the great responsibilities of the Office of the President of the United States. And John Sparkman, our vice-presidential candidate, can be counted on to continue his work in the interest of all the people of our country. They tell me that William Howard Taft was the last President who visited Haverhill, and that was way back in March 19 12. We have made a lot of progress in the United States since 191 2, but I am not quite sure that the Republican Party has made any progress. Moreover, the Republican politi- cians don't seem to be able to recognize progress when they see it. Let me read you something the Republi- can candidate for President said 2 weeks ago in Peoria, Illinois. He was giving his stand- ard lecture to convince his audience just how bad off they were, and he told them they had to "get off" — these are his exact words — "get off the national treadmill that keeps the peo- ple of this Nation standing still while giving them the illusion of moving forward." "The national treadmill that keeps the people of this Nation standing still" — that is what he said. Well, let's take a look at that treadmill. I want you to listen to me now, because it is important to all of you. You are on a treadmill going backward, evidendy. Here is an article printed in the June 15, 195 1, issue of a magazine called U.S. News and World Report. Now remember, this article was not written in an election year. And this magazine can never be accused of being partial to the Demo- cratic administration. In fact, it is whole- heartedly against us. 846 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [295] The article contains the results of exten- sive research on the rise in the standard of living of the American people. That maga- zine was amazed at its own findings. It found, and I quote, "most of the people are better fed, better housed, better clothed, en- joy more leisure, enjoy more comforts than at any other time in history." Among other things, the article reports that from 1941 to 1951 in each 100 homes, the number having electricity increased from 79 in each 100 to 96 in each 100; those having passenger cars, from 72 in each 100 to 82 in each 100; those having electric refrigerators, from 46 in each 100 to 78 in each 100. You are not going to like him so well when I get through. The electric washing machines increased from 44 in each 100 to 65 in each 100. Now remember, all this took place in the past 10 years, when the people were march- ing on that "national treadmill" of the Re- publican General. I have just made a trip across the coun- try and back, and I can tell you that today, in 1952, our people are just as well off as they were a year ago. Our economy is sound and healthy, and our people look for- ward to even greater advancements. It's the same story every 4 years. The Republicans in Congress have made a voting record that is entirely against the people, but when election year comes, the propaganda machines start rolling to convince the people that the Republican reactionary is the little man's best friend. Well, the American people haven't fallen for this line for 20 years now, and they are not going to fall for it again this year. I want you young people — you young peo- ple who are doing so much yelling down there to do a little thinking, and you wouldn't yell so loud. If you would just exercise your brains, instead of your voices, you would find out something for your own welfare. What you need to do is to study the rec- ord. Just study the record in your own inter- est. Look what the Republicans have done in the Congress. That is a record on which they have to run. They won't tell you about it. Then look at the Democratic record— the record the Democrats are running on, and you will find that it has been in your interests, and not for the special interests and the lobbies. Study those things, so that you can vote in your own interests, so that you can vote for the welfare of this Nation as a whole, and so that you can vote for the welfare of the free world in the future. If you do that, and I am sure all of you will do it — you have got plenty of time to study the record — just go home and study it — and if you do that, I will tell you what you will do. You will go to the polls on election day and you will wake up the next morning and Adlai Stevenson will be Presi- dent of the United States, and we will be safe for another 4 years. [8.] Lawrence, Massachusetts (Cam- pagnone Memorial Common, 1:22 p.m.) I can't tell you how very much I appreciate that most cordial welcome. I don't think I have ever seen so many people in one place in my life, and I have been a good many places where there have been big crowds. Now I suppose all of you understand that I am no longer a candidate for office. Back in March 1952 I announced to the world that I expected to retire from the Presidential Office on January 20th. Now I am not cam- paigning for myself; I am campaigning for the Democratic Party, to which I owe every- thing I have ever had politically. I have had all that I can ask from the American people and the Democratic Party. I am not asking for votes for myself, but I am asking you to vote the Democratic ticket, which in my opin- ion is the party that can do most for the country in the next 4 years. I am asking you to vote for the Democratic candidates in this State: for young Jack Ken- nedy for the Senate, for Tom Lane for the 847 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents House of Representatives, and for my good friend Paul Dever for Governor. I am also asking you as earnestly as I know how to vote for the Democratic nominees for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. These two men are two of the best candi- dates that the Democratic Party has ever offered to the American people. Adlai Stevenson will, I am sure, make a great President — an honest, courageous, and wise President who will stand on the side of the people. I believe this election is one of the most critical that this country has ever faced. My conviction on this point has grown stronger as the campaign progressed. I am deeply alarmed at the position the Republican Party has assumed and the pledges and promises they have made. On the domestic front, it is clear that the Republican Party is dominated by its most reactionary wing — running on the most re- actionary platform it has had in recent history. What I want to talk to you about, how- ever, is not the threat which the Republican Party presents to our domestic economy — which certainly is bad enough — but I want to spell out the danger which a Republican victory would mean in our fight against communism. I do not think I have to explain to you that the peace of the world and the future of our civilization are greatly menaced by Soviet communism. You know as well as I do what this godless creed would do to us if it achieved world domination. Before an audience in Massachusetts, I do not have to justify the efforts that this Government is making to curb that menace, and I do not have to apologize for what that effort is cost- ing you. You know too well the value of what is at stake in this struggle. Since the end of the war we have built a gigantic framework of international security against this terrible Soviet threat. We have been determined that Soviet con- quest would not absorb the people of Europe. Europe is not only essential to our military security, it is also the land of our origins. We know that the people there have faith in God, we know that they have faith in free- dom, and that they deserve our help against the menace that overshadows them. We have given that help, and we have changed the whole situation. In 1946 the way lay open to Communist subversion and aggression all across Western Europe. To- day, those gates are closed. As a result of our aid, the European nations stand firm in their determination to resist the establish- ment of communism. In the Far East we have helped to create and strengthen a ring of new and inde- pendent nations from India to Japan. We have helped 600 million people to make their way from colonial subjection or de- pendency to independent self-government. Baffled in Europe, the masters of the Kremlin redoubled their efforts in Asia. They dared to do there what they were afraid to do in Europe. Their puppet armies crossed an international boundary in an effort to gobble up an independent country. This was the first step in a process that meant world war III if it was not stopped. We met this threat and if it had not been met I am just as sure as I stand here the So- viets would have marched all over Europe. We stopped aggression in its tracks and drove it back. This has cost us much in resources and money and in brave lives. But we have held firm, and behind the shield of our defense the free nations have been growing in power and determination to resist further Com- munist advances. This whole program of resisting Com- munist aggression from Germany around the world to Japan has been created by this Democratic administration. It has also had the support of a number of decent Repub- licans. We have welcomed that support. But it has had the continuing and bitter opposition of the men who now lead and control the Republican Party, and who dominate the Republicans in Congress. 848 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [295] Despite Republican opposition, we have put our program into effect, and it has brought the Communist drive to a stand- still. This bitter opposition comes from the isolationist wing of the Republican Party. And this wing is composed of men who are as blind to the real significance of the Com- munist threat as they were to the threat of Hitler. They are the same men who thought we could do business with Hitler before the war. You may remember how they wanted to abolish the draft just a few weeks before Pearl Harbor. To these men the danger of communism, and the security of the country, are dim and distant concepts. What bulks large in their view of world affairs is their pocketbooks and the pocketbooks of their friends and followers. They are against communism if it doesn't cost much to be against it. They are in favor of defense only if it doesn't mean high taxes. For years these isolationists were kept in the background by the integrity and the force of character of Senator Vandenberg. When he died, they emerged again and sought to control the Republican Party. Their great effort was made at the Republican convention this year, and everyone thought they had been defeated. But now we find the Re- publican candidate for President accepting and adopting their arguments, and making the same attacks on our foreign policy that they have been making for years. The liberal Republicans lost the nomination, and the Old Guard Republicans captured that nomination — and they also captured the nominee. There is a real danger in this, my friends — a grave and terrible danger. I want to ex- plain to you just what this is, if you are interested — and I know you are because it affects you right down to the home. The policy of the isolationists is the policy of appeasement. Of course, they do not use that word. They do not even admit it to themselves. But that is what their recom- mendations add up to. They do not say, "Let America stay weak, while the Soviet empire grows strong." But they recommend that we cut back our de- fense program — they recommend tax cuts and budget cuts which would weaken our Army and Navy and Air Force. And this amounts to appeasement. They do not say, "Let's abandon our allies and let them sink." But they try to cut down our programs for making our allies strong enough to stand on their own feet and resist Communist aggression. And that amounts to appeasement. They do not say, "Let the Soviet commu- nism overrun and conquer any litde country that can't preserve its freedom by its own efforts." But they do say, "Let Europeans fight Europeans" — "Let Asians fight Asians." They do say, "We ought to keep our Armed Forces at home." And that amounts to appeasement. Now, let's get this matter straight. Our firm policy is to make the free nations strong enough to defend themselves. But as the world is today, many of these countries simply cannot protect themselves against communism without the help of our Armed Forces. Either we let the Soviet empire gobble up these countries, or we send our forces in to aid in their defense, and fight if need be. The choice is that simple. It is a choice between resisting Communist aggression or appeasing it. And the road of appeasement leads to bit- ter defeat. We all know that. Now these isolationist policies have been thrashed over in public debate in this coun- try, for some years past. The American peo- ple know them for what they are — either a foolish delusion or a cheap way of trying to get votes. Now, toward the end of this campaign, the Republican candidate for President appears to have adopted them. Now he \nows bet- ter. That is what makes me sad. He knows better. He has been a part of the program by which we have been holding these Com- munists back — and he knows better. He has 849 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents worked to build up our national security here and abroad. He knows, or ought to know, the danger we face. In fact, he has told me what the danger we face is, time and time again. But he appears to be willing to un- dermine our safety if that will get him elected President. Look at the positions he has taken. He has urged that we cut our defense spending. He has urged that we cut taxes. He has sneered at our specific programs of military and economic aid to Europe. And now, in recent days, he is apparently suggesting that we pull our troops out of Korea and let the South Koreans do all the fighting. Now I want to give you some facts about this last proposal. I have never seen anything cheaper in politics. We cannot do what he suggests — without appeasing communism in Korea — and he knows it. Of course, every one of us would like to be able to bring the boys back home. Nothing weighs more heavily on our minds and hearts than the sacrifices and the casualties our forces are suffering there. If I could or- der them home without endangering our country, without imperiling our homes, I assure you, I would do it. But it cannot be done. And I cannot do it. And neither can the Republican candidate for President — and he knows it. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent is talking as if he had a new idea in the training of South Koreans to do the fighting in Korea. This, my friends, is just a shame- less pretence. He knows that one of the major features of our policy in Korea — and one of the major achievements of our Armed Forces there during the last 18 months — has been the creation and training of a strong Korean ground army. This is one of the greatest benefits we have obtained during the lull in fighting that resulted from the truce talks — the truce talks which the Republican candidate has cheaply and falsely called a "bear trap." The United States is now supporting the Republic of Korea military forces totaling approximately 400,000 men. Our training schools are turning out 14,000 South Korean soldiers each month. There are 50 percent more Korean troops in the batdelines today than there are Americans. But the kept press in this country has never told you that. The creation of these large and capable forces is the result of our intensive training program. This program is going ahead as fast as General Mark Clark and General Van Fleet can make it go. It takes a long time to make good officers. It takes a good while to train men to handle modern weapons and to service them. But we are making excellent progress. The Koreans want to defend their own country. They have shown that they are capable of fighting bravely and well. Any- body who has read the newspaper headlines the last few days — instead of the speeches of the Republican candidate — has seen how the South Koreans have met and turned back a new Communist offensive. But we have to give them more than rifles and uniforms if they are to win victories. It is sheer demagoguery to assert otherwise. Today, the South Koreans are facing not only the North Koreans but the Chinese Communist armies. And behind those Com- munist armies are the vast supplies, weapons of war, and skilled technicians of the Soviet Union itself. If we mean to hold Korea, if we mean to hold the line there against inter- national aggression, there must be no loose talk now about pulling our soldiers out. As a result of the training of the South Koreans, we have been able to give our men less duty at the front, and to carry out a rotation policy for our soldiers. Ultimately, it is our objective to have a Korean Republic completely able to defend itself. But this will not be possible so long as the offensive power of the Communist conspiracy is con- centrated on South Korea. 850 Harry S. Truman, igp Oct. 17 [295] Now these, my friends, are hard military facts, and, of all people, the Republican can- didate for President ought to know them. Yet, in speech after speech, he leaves the im- pression that if he is elected he will majesti- cally let the Koreans take over all the fight- ing, and bring our boys home. While he is on the back platform of his train, holding out this glowing hope, his staff are in the press car pointing out to the reporters that he has not said when he would be able to do this. And he knows very well he can't do it, without surrendering Korea — until the present Korean conflict is at an end, and he knows it. But he doesn't mind leading peo- ple to think he can do it as soon as he is elected. He said that he knows a remedy for Korea. Well now, my friends, I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I put him in command of the NATO troops in Europe. He has been my military adviser officially ever since World War II was over. And if he had information which would be valuable to me in helping to wind up the Korean business, he ought to give it to me and let's do it now, and save a lot of lives, and not wait — not do a lot of demagoguery and say that he can do it after he is elected. If he can do it after he is elected, we can do it now. My friends, the great danger of these false promises — the great danger of all these isola- tionist attacks on our foreign policy — is that they give aid and comfort to the Commu- nists. The Communists want us to cut down our defense effort. They want us to pull out of Korea. They want us to go soft and take it easy. They are hoping that we will get tired of the effort we are making, that we will become impatient with our allies, that we will slow down the creation of a strong de- fense in Europe and give up in Asia. That is their strategy for us. That is the Communist strategy for us. That is the real bear trap the Republicans are likely to lead us into. The Soviet Foreign Minister got off the boat in New York a few days ago — listen to this carefully, now, this is the Soviet Foreign Minister — he was asked whether he agreed with the proposal of the Republican candi- date for President that we should withdraw our troops from Korea. He replied that he agreed with the proposal that the United States troops should be withdrawn from Korea. He said we should not have been there in the first place. Naturally! That has long been the Com- munist line. In the strains and stresses of our election year, there is danger we may make decisions which conform to the Soviet strategy for our destruction. That is why I say this is a most critical election. The only sure defense of this country, the only sure path to peace, is the policy of firm resistance to communism which we have been following — a policy of avoiding another great war on the one hand and of avoiding appeasement on the other. This is a very hard and difficult path to follow, my friends. There are no shortcuts — no easy way — in the present situation to meet what we are faced with. We have already achieved great gains through following this policy. We have already saved our civilization from a dis- aster that seemed almost inevitable a few years ago. But bear this in mind. We are still in danger. We cannot expect to win easily in this struggle against forces so men- acing and so evil that they seem like the forces of Antichrist. In this election, we should choose the man and the party who see our danger clearly, and face it with courage and determination. We should choose the candidate who is not afraid to talk about it frankly to all the peo- ple. And we should choose that candidate on the basis of what is best for this great Re- public, the greatest in the history of the world. The Presidency is the most powerful office that has ever existed in the history of the world. You must have a man in that office 851 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents who has a level head, who is not a dema- gogue, who thinks of the people first, and who thinks of the welfare of this great coun- try, who thinks of saving the free world from communism. And if you think of these things as you should, and use your head in your own inter- ests— and in the interests of this great Na- tion of ours, you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States, and we will have 4 good years. [9.] Malden, Massachusetts (Rear plat- form, 2:42p.m.) I am very, very happy to be here. I am here today campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. Your city here, and Massachusetts, are very lucky people. You have a slate of candidates on the Democratic ticket here in Massachusetts that any State in the Union could be proud of. You have a candidate for Senator, the very able young man who has made a great record for himself in the Congress of the United States. He will make you a great Senator, and that is Jack Kennedy. Your candidate for Con- gress, John Carr, is a man who will do you credit in that great organization down in Washington that makes the laws that govern you. And I don't need to say anything about your Governor, because you have had him as Governor — you know his ability, you know how he runs the office, you know that he is a public servant; and I hope you will reelect my friend Paul Dever. We have on our national ticket two of the best qualified candidates any party ever of- fered to the voters; that is, Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They are fine gende- men. They are fine men with a great deal of experience in public service. They have made outstanding records in the Govern- ment and in politics. They have demon- strated that they understand and care about and work for the interests of the plain, every- day people of this country. These men you can trust all the way, because they let you know what they believe in, in every section of the United States; and they believe in the Democratic platform. I have been traveling around the country now for 3 weeks, telling the people the facts and the truth about what is at stake for them in this election. I have explained that the Republican Old Guard who run that party are no friends of the plain, everyday people. The Old Guard leadership has fought against practically every good thing the New Deal and the Fair Deal ever did for the people. You read the Congressional Record in the Congress, as I have done — I read it every day — and you will know that I am right. The Old Guard Republicans voted against social security. They voted against mini- mum wage. They voted against housing. They voted against rent control. They voted against price control. And what have they voted for? Well, I am going to tell you the few things they have voted for — and they weren't in your inter- ests. They voted for Taft-Hartley. They put the loopholes in the tax bill for the rich, and price increases for big industry, and special favors for just about every special interest you can think of. Now, you know, down in Washington there is the real estate lobby, there is the China lobby, there is the lobby for the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers, there is the lobby for the chamber of commerce. There is a lobby for every big interest in the country. And you know, the only lobbyist that the people of the United States have in Washington that looks after their interests is the President of the United States. So if you are going to send a man down there for President who is also a lobbyist for these big interests, where are you going to be ? There won't be anybody to look after your interests. So you had better be darn well careful how you go to the polls and vote this time. Now, my friends, the Republicans of course don't want to talk about their record. They know they can't win if you remember 852 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [295] how they have been voting, instead of how they have been promising. So they are try- ing to divert your attention from the facts by lots of ballyhoo and propaganda. You know the Republican candidate for President said he was going to try to win by appealing to the emotions of the voters in- stead of to their reason. You may have heard how the Republicans organized the crowds that go out to cheer their candidate. I am told that they send 60 advance men ahead of them to work up these celebrations, and 2 of these men — and this is most interest- ing— have exclusive charge of the confetti concession. Then there is the Republican appeal to the plain, everyday people. That is where they try to prove they are just like the rest of us. Now, I want to read you a letter, a copy of which I have, and it shows how they work. This is a letter which was sent by a doctor down in Nashville, Tennessee, to a bunch of other doctors down there, and it reads as follows. This is most interesting. This is in quotes — now here is the doctor's letter. It says, "Dear Doctor: I have been asked as a member of Senator Nixon's parade com- mittee to ask a few of my friends to drive their cars in the Nixon parade on Saturday, September the 27th. We want to count on you to be there, or if you can't participate, have someone come in your place. In order to make the best impression on the general public, we are asking you to use a small car, if that is possible." We Democrats sure have been tough on the Republicans when so many of them have to ride around in big cars, and don't have a small car for their parades. Now I am afraid you will have to take the Democrats straight, whether they happen to have a big car, or a small car, or no car at all. We believe in standing on our record — and we don't want to try to hide it. I am sure you people are not going to give your vote to the big car Republican phonies. They are not your friends, and never have been. They won't look out for your inter- ests, they won't protect your jobs, they don't know what it takes to keep this country pros- perous and safe. Now, what I want you to do, and why I am going up and down this country when I can sit in the White House and not do as much work as usual, and the only reason I am going up and down this country like I am — and I am carrying on the business of the Presidency just the same as if I were in the White House; the pouch follows me every day and goes back every day, and I have to transact all the business — is to try to con- vince you people that you have got a per- sonal interest in this election. This is one of the most important elections we have had since the Civil War. All I am trying to do is to get the everyday citizen who controls this country by his vote to con- sider the situation with which we are faced. I want you to study what is before the coun- try. I want you to study the foreign affairs policy of this country. I want you to study the domestic program that has been carried out for the last 20 years by the New Deal and the Fair Deal. I want you to think what is ahead. I want you yourselves to read the record. I want you to read the record of the Republicans in Congress, because that will be the policy, if the Republicans get control — and Taft will make that policy. I want you to read the record of the Demo- crats in the Congress, and then on election day I want you to vote for your own inter- ests— which is the interest of this great Re- public. I want you to look out for the wel- fare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world. I want you to look out for the welfare of the free world. The whole free world depends upon the policies pursued by the President of the United States, because he is the most powerful executive in the world — the most powerful executive in the history of the world. And he has to have a heart, he has to have a head, and he has to think of the people first. And he has to think of the welfare of the free world — be- 55-672—66- -57 853 [295] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents fore he thinks of anything else — that we want to maintain it. Now, study these things. I am only asking you to think. I am not asking you to do any- thing but think for your own interests. Think for the welfare of this Nation. And if you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and we will have Adlai Stevenson for President the next 4 years — and the country will be safe. note: In the course of his remarks on October 17 the President referred to, among others, Peter Poirier, Democratic candidate for Representative, William Craig, Democratic candidate for Governor, and Governor Sherman Adams, all of New Hampshire, Fred Brown, former Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Representative John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate for Senator, Gov- ernor Paul A. Dever, Representative Thomas J. Lane, and John C. Carr, Democratic candidate for Repre- sentative, all of Massachusetts, and Arthur H. Van- denberg, Senator from Michigan, 192 8-1 951. 296 Address at Symphony Hall in Boston, Massachusetts. October 17, 1952 Governor, Mr. Chairman: It is, of course, always a pleasure for me to come to Boston, and I hope you will let me come back when I am out of a job. This year I am not asking for votes for myself, but I want your votes for the Demo- cratic Party just as much if not more than I did in 1948. When I leave the White House next Jan- uary 20th, I want to be able to turn over the duties of my great office to a man who is worthy to lead this Nation during the next 4 years. That man is Adlai Stevenson. I hope at the same time you'll send Jack Kennedy to the Senate to work with him. I know you will send my old friend, John McCormack, back to his job as majority leader in the House of Representatives. And I want you to elect to the House of Representatives that fine group of new Democratic candidates for Congress, Fred- erick Hailer, Thomas O'Neill, and David J. Crowley. Now it is a very difficult situation for a President, and I am speaking from experience, when he has a contrary Congress, although I won the election on account of the fact that I did have one. But I want to give the new President a chance to do the job and put his program through. I know you are going to continue your progressive and constructive State govern- ment by reelecting my good friend Governor Paul Dever, and the whole Democratic ticket. I'm going to spend a little time tonight talking with you about a self-styled crusade. Of course, it's not unusual to call a cam- paign a crusade, but in this case the mili- tary analogy is being carried just a little too far. The leader of the crusade has an- nounced that the model for his crusaders is to be Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads. Well Oliver Cromwell may have had his points, but his crusade, as I recall it, was one that started out as a matter of principle, and finished up by destroying parliamentary government and butchering women and children. God save us from a crusade like that. That suggests that it is easier to start a crusade than it is to control it, particularly when a lot of fanatics are enrolled in the ranks. And tonight I want to take a good look at some of the fanatics that are en- rolled in the great Republican crusade of 1952. We Democrats have good reason to be on our guard against fanaticism in a political campaign. The last time fanaticism was injected into a presidential campaign, deliberately and on a national scale, was in 1928. In that campaign, the Democratic Party was led by one of the finest men this coun- try ever produced, Alfred E. Smith. As the liberal and progressive Governor of New York throughout the period of reac- tionary Republican rule in Washington, he 854 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [296] had already pointed out the path that the New Deal and the Fair Deal were to follow after 1932. You people of Boston don't have to be re- minded of the tactics that were used to defeat Al Smith in 1928. It was the most disgrace- ful and un-American campaign in the his- tory of the country. Now, I am sincerely hoping that the pres- ent one doesn't set a new low, but I'm afraid that's just what's happening. The opposition party has been desperately searching for an issue these past 4 years. But the country is strong and firm and pros- perous. We are making progress in se- curity, opportunity, and the enjoyment of our civil rights. Abroad, the country has moved to meet the greatest danger to world civilization that we have ever seen. We have built the ramparts of the free world, and helped to man them. We have checked and frustrated the Communist plans for world conquest without bringing on world war III. Now, my friends, these are tremendous achievements — of which this generation may well be proud. So what have the Republicans dragged up as an issue? It is so contrary to the facts as to be preposterous. It is the false charge that this administration — this party — your Democratic Party — has been soft toward communism. Outside the lie-factory of the Kremlin itself, it would be hard to find a more fan- tastic perversion of the truth. I am sure you could go around the world, talking to every person you met, from Ire- land to Japan, and you wouldn't find a single one who thought that the Democratic Party was soft on communism — until you got back in this country, and talked to a Republican. I can tell you truthfully — that is not what the people of Europe think. It is not what the people of Africa or Asia think. All around the world the free nations acknowl- edge us as the leaders in the resistance to communism. I assure you the Russians do not think we are soft toward communism. They have been defeated, blocked, and thwarted at every turn of the road. My name and the name of this great party of ours are things they curse and grind their teeth at. And soon they will be cursing the name of Adlai Stevenson the same way. I don't think the Russians are by any means so sure that the Republican Party means business in this fight against commu- nism. When it comes to speeches, the Re- publican Party may be way ahead; but when it comes to deeds, their record is far, far behind. It is not the Democrats, but the Republi- cans in Congress who have been voting to cut aid to the free nations of Europe in this struggle against communism. It is not the Democrats, but the Republicans in Con- gress— who voted more than 6 to 1 to deny to the little Republic of Korea, almost on the eve of its invasion by the Communists, the help that they needed. If there was any act on our part that led the Communist leaders to believe they could launch their attack with impunity, it was that vote on the Korean aid bill in 1950. In the light of the world struggle we are engaged in, the Republican talk about our being soft toward communism is surely one of the most desperate fabrications that a desperate party ever put forth. But they put it forth, and they continue to reiterate it, and I suppose the clamor will get even worse before election day. They are using the technique of the big lie — the technique developed by Hitler — of advancing a falsehood so monstrous that it stuns the judgment of the listener, and then repeating it again and again — in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. And they are using this technique to play upon our legitimate fear and concern about Commu- nist infiltration. Now Communist infiltration is, of course, a threat to this country, as it is a threat to all free countries. It is a threat we must be aware of — one that we are aware of, and 855 [296] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents one that we have been handling through effective security measures for a long time. But it is not something that should make us lose our commonsense, lose all faith in our institutions, lose confidence in one another. I think the whole picture has been put very well by Gen. Bedell Smith, who is the head of our Central Intelligence Agency — one of our most important agencies in the struggle against communism. He has said that we must always be on the alert against Communist espionage. No matter what precautions we may take, we can never as- sume that we are entirely safe from them. But, he said, our security is not a political matter. And he went on, and I am going to quote him: "Any future President, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to work with the same security agencies now in existence. Both will have the same difficulties that we now encounter today. If either one of them, the Democrat or the Republican, does as well as President Truman in cooperation with the security agencies in ferreting out sub- versives, the American people can congratu- late each other and will have little to worry about." Now, my friends, those are the words of a Government security expert, a man who is a distinguished Army general — a four-star general. He is a former Chief of Staff to the man who is now the Republican candidate for President. The Republican candidate knows him well, and I don't think that even he can deny that General Smith is a man to be trusted. Now this is the important point: Security against Communist infiltration is not a partisan affair. It is just as easy for a Com- munist spy to deceive a Republican as it is for him to deceive a Democrat. Espionage and treachery are no respecters of the party label. All through our history there have been instances of espionage and treason. And all through our history Americans have had the good sense to be disgusted and angry at the traitors, and not at the people they betrayed. George Washington put his full faith and trust in Benedict Arnold, and gave him com- mand of West Point, the key to our defenses in New York. When Benedict Arnold tried to turn that fort over to the British, the American people didn't scream about George Washington, and call for his removal. They did not say Washington was soft on Tories. They vented their wrath, quite properly, on the traitor — Benedict Arnold. During the Revolutionary War, there was a wide net of British espionage and treachery throughout the colonies. It was a terrible threat to our survival. If our Founding Fathers had been as jittery and hysterical as the Republicans of today, they would have lost their heads, suspecting and mistrusting each other, and they never would have won the war for independence. But they weeded out the British traitors quietly, as they went along; they stuck to- gether, and they won. That is what we will have to do. No man is immune from being betrayed. Even the Holy Gospel teaches that very well. This attempt to fix partisan blame for the existence of traitors is a new low in our po- litical life. But because so much effort has been made to misrepresent the whole question of Com- munist infiltration, I think I ought to tell you some of the things your administration has been doing about it. Our fight against communism goes back a long way. In the despair of the Great Depression, communism had a chance to sell its false doctrines to the American public. It is easy to make a hungry, homeless, un- employed man hate his government and the economic system which has no place for him. In 1932 there were over 100,000 Com- munist votes. But today, after 20 Democratic years, nearly all Americans are proud of their Government and of the economic system under which they live. The membership 856 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 17 [296] of the Communist Party today, according to J. Edgar Hoover, Director of FBI, is less than 25,000 — 25,000 and 157 million good citizens. Do you think they can overturn the Government? We have been fighting communism by doing away with the conditions in which communism grows. And the Republicans have been no help to us at all in this part of the struggle. They have fought the measures — like housing and minimum wages — which have cut the ground out from under the Communist propaganda. In fact they have called these measures communistic — and they have hurled scurrilous slanders of communism at those who have worked for these measures — from Franklin D. Roosevelt down to me. But we have been successful in spite of them. What is left of the Communist movement is a small, insidious underground conspiracy. It is a group designed to serve the interests of a foreign dictatorship, the Soviet Union, through deceit and treachery. We have met this part of the threat, too. In 1939 President Roosevelt directed the FBI to take charge of all investigative work in matters relating to espionage, sabotage, and subversive activities. I have continued the work of the FBI in this field, and have expanded it. Skillfully and systematically, the FBI and the Department of Justice have been break- ing up the Communist conspiracy in the United States. They have caught Soviet espionage agents. They have sent the prin- cipal leaders of the Communist Party to jail for conspiring to advocate the overthrow of our Government by force and violence. In addition, the Department of Justice has proceeded against the Communist conspiracy on every other level. It has secured con- victions against hundreds of Communists for perjury, contempt of Congress, contempt of court, and other crimes relating to com- munism. Since 1939 it has been unlawful for a Communist to work for the Federal Gov- ernment. All Government employees have been required to take an oath that they are not Communists or members of an organi- zation that advocates overthrow of our Government. In addition, employees of the executive branch are checked by the FBI. In those cases where the check shows there is any question about the loyalty of an employee, the FBI gives him a thorough investigation, clear back to the time he was born. The FBI investigates every charge or suggestion or indication — from whatever source — that a Government employee is a Communist or is not loyal to the Government. In this way, persons who are found to be Communists, or of doubtful loyalty, are kept out of the Government. If there are any Communists or subversives in the Federal Government today, they will be thrown out just as fast as they can be identified by the FBI or the other security agencies of the Government. But, my friends, the Government em- ployees will not be fired without evidence. They will not be convicted on the mere basis of accusation. I am still a believer in the Bill of Rights, my friends. Quietly, relentlessly, this work of main- taining our security goes on. It is a hard and thankless task. It doesn't get headlines in the papers. The headlines go to the headline hunters, when they deny that the job is being well done. A litde group of reckless politicians have discovered that they can get great publicity for themselves if they bring to light any bits and pieces of this incessant process of se- curity screening. The uproar started when a Republican Senator, through devious means, managed to get his hands on the results of a number of these security investigations. These were old cases, but he dumped them all into the public record and claimed that he had un- covered a whole host of Communists in the State Department. My friends, he hadn't 857 [296] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents uncovered a single Communist, and he hasn't uncovered a single Communist to this day. And he can't do it. But as a result of the publicity he got, the Republicans decided to make a big thing out of the false charges of Communists in the Government. They began to attack their political opponents, and Government employees who resisted their demands, even their critics in the press — as Communists. And every time they did it, the one-party press gave them a headline — increasing their appetite for more headlines. The low point in this hysteria was reached when they tried to besmirch the reputation — the honor and the integrity — of one of the finest, most honorable, and most patriotic soldiers and public servants we have ever had — Gen. George C. Marshall. Now, my friends, the moral pigmies who assailed this truly great man were Senator Jenner of Indiana and Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin. The Republican candidate for President probably owes more to General Marshall than he does to any other living man. Gen- eral Marshall trusted him, gave him his great opportunities, and backed him up when the going was rough. Yet the Republican candidate, far from condemning these two slanderers of his great friend, has welcomed them to his cam- paign— has shaken their hands in public — has appealed to the voters to send them to the Senate to help him, if he is elected. For me, these acts tell volumes about the character of the Republican candidate for President. I am sorry. I am saddened by that action. Most of us, I think, believe a man ought to be loyal to his friends when they are un- justly attacked; that he ought to stand up for them, even if it costs him some votes. At any rate, that is a rule of my life. I stand by my friends. I don't know what the strategy board of the Republican Party thinks about it — nor do I care — but I say that a man who won't stand up for the honor and good name of his friends can't be relied on to stand up for anything else. I don't trust a man like that, and I don't think you do, either. What the Republican candidate for Presi- dent has done is more than endorse an un- worthy individual. He has endorsed a technique — a reign of terror by slander. He has endorsed the indiscriminate slaughter of the good name of one's opponents as a method of political warfare. Henceforth, unless this thing is stopped, we are all in danger — every Democrat, every liberal, every minority group, every decent citizen who dares to oppose these men of poisoned tongues. The Republican candidate has given himself to the whirlwind — the tempest of slander, which has grown strong on our fear of communism. He hopes that he can ride into office on it. But he may find it stronger than he is. And at any rate, it is a strange ending for his "great crusade." What started out as a matter of principle, like Cromwell's crusade, is ending up in the butchery of the reputations of innocent men and women. And that is tragic — that is tragic. This is what I mean by the fanaticism that has now taken over the "great crusade." At this point, it would be a good thing for us all to remember the words of the Catholic bishops of the United States — uttered a year ago as a warning against this very danger. They said, and I quote: "Dishonesty, slander, detraction, and defamation of char- acter are as truly transgressions of God's commandments when resorted to by men in political life as they are for all other men." Nothing was ever more truly said. These are good words for us to heed, and to follow. I do not have to point out to you that they constitute a principle which has been fol- lowed throughout his public career by a man who is now the Democratic candidate for President — Adlai Stevenson. In his words, as in his acts, Adlai Steven- 858 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 17 [297J son has demonstrated that he is fair, honest, and courageous. He has not stooped to lies, or half-truths. He has fought a hard cam- paign cleanly. No shady equivocation, no slimy innuendo has passed his lips, what- ever the provocation. His, my friends, is a character you can trust. His is the party you can trust. His is the great party of the American people, firm in their belief in right conduct, unshakable in their faith in God, united against the monstrous evils of communism and godlessness in all their forms, confident of winning the way, under Divine Guid- ance, to a just and lasting peace. note: The President spoke at 9:30 p.m. in Sym- phony Hall, Boston, Mass. In his opening remarks he referred to Governor Paul A. Dever of Massachu- setts and Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, chairman of the occasion. Later he referred to Representative John F. Kennedy, Demo- cratic candidate for Senator, Frederick C. Hailer, Thomas P. O'Neill, and David J. Crowley, Demo- cratic candidates for Representative, all of Massa- chusetts, Walter B. Smith, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, and Senators William E. Jenner of Indiana and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin. 297 Address Prepared for Delivery Before the Mobilization Conference of the National Jewish Welfare Board. October 17, 1952 [ Read by Howland H. Sargeant, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs ] Mr. Edison, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I am most regretful that I cannot be with you in person to attend this Mobilization Conference of the National Jewish Welfare Board. I have some highly important mat- ters to discuss with you and I had planned to do it in person. However, on my recent trip across the country, I found the American people were intensely eager to hear the truth. They want to see some of the fog cleared away that has been disseminated by the Re- publicans during this crucial year. Now, the people of New England have asked me to make a swing through their part of the country where the Republican fog has settled heavily. Unlike the Repub- licans, it is impossible for me to stand in two places at once; and so I have asked Mr. How- land Sargeant, Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, to come in my stead and read the speech I had planned for you. It would be a great pleasure to me to be there with your honorary president, Mr. Frank Weil, who has given so much of his time and energy to your cause and to mine. Just as he has served you with ability and distinction for many years, he has served me with unfailing enthusiasm in the USO and as Chairman of the President's Committee on Religions and Welfare in the Armed Forces. Frank Weil has fought long and hard for the little people of this country. He has steadily concerned himself with their social and economic problems. He was one of the organizers of the USO, which did such a fine job for our servicemen during World War II and is doing the same kind of job today. This year he is active as national Chairman of the Citizens Committee for United Na- tions Day. This meeting has been called to help the Jewish Welfare Board expand and intensify its welfare services to Jewish personnel in the uniform of the United States and to strengthen its efforts on behalf of the civilian Jewish communities. The distinguished Jewish leaders from communities all over America — gathered here in response to the call of the National Jewish Welfare Board — personify the spirit of wholehearted support 859 [297] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents the American people are giving the cause of freedom in its fight against the forces of darkness and oppression. It is about that struggle I wish to speak today. Throughout my 7 years in the Presi- dency, I have tried hard to right some of the injustices and to lift some of the suffer- ing the Jewish people experienced so bit- terly during the war. The victims of the Nazi tyranny needed a chance to live again in peace and dignity, and I was determined to do what I could to help these innocent by- standers of war. I did not do this as an act of kindness or charity, but in defense of the great principle upon which democracy is based — the principle that freedom resides in respect for the equal worth and dignity of each individual person. Whoever under- mines that principle has begun the slow and inevitable destruction of freedom itself. That principle today is in mortal danger. From outside our country, that principle is in danger from the world threat of Com- munist imperialism. I am glad to say that this Government has taken the lead among the governments of the world in mobilizing the resources of the free world to stem the tide of Communist aggression. At home the principle of freedom is being undermined by the forces of reaction orga- nized in the Republican Party and led, I am sorry to say, by the captive candidate who has turned his back on the great mission he once served so well in Europe. Let's review some history. When our Armed Forces marched into defeated Nazi Germany, revelations were made that shocked the whole civilized world. The full scope of the Nazi tyranny revealed that not less than 6 million Jews had been killed by the Nazi warlords. We soon discovered that occupants of the displaced persons camps did not wish to move out into the life of the country, although living condi- tions in the camps were poor. I sent Earl G. Harrison, former Commis- sioner of Immigration and Naturalization, to look over the camps and give me a report. He told me that the vast majority of the Jewish displaced persons felt their future would be secure only in Palestine. On Mr. Harrison's recommendation, I asked the Government of Great Britain to make avail- able immediately 100,000 entry permits into Palestine. In order to relate the proposed permits to the larger problem of Jewish re- settlement, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry was formed. This Committee again repeated the recommendation that 100,000 entry permits be issued. You know the rest of the story as well as I do. The Jewish Agency for Palestine went ahead with plans to partition Palestine and to pro- claim the State of Israel. I am proud of my part in the creation of this new state. Our Government was the first to recognize the State of Israel. Dr. Chaim Weizmann is an old and dear friend of mine. It was a great pleasure for me to have him stay overnight in the Blair House. I could not help but notice the many thou- sands of people who passed by Blair House to see the flags of the United States and the new country of Israel flying side by side. I admire the courage with which the State of Israel has approached difficult problems. Since its creation, it has admitted not 100,000 but 700,000 refugees. This has not been easy. The United States has lent great sup- port and assistance in both public and pri- vate funds. I hope that whoever follows me in the Presidency will continue to give our coun- try's fullest support to our technical assist- ance program not only in Israel but through- out the entire Near East. Peace between Israel and the Arab States has been an im- portant objective of our Near Eastern policy. I hope that we shall soon see the day when Israel and her neighbors will sit down at the peace table and will reach a full settlement of all their differences so that our friends in the Near East, Arabs and Israelis alike, may enter together upon a new partnership for the mutual advantage of all their peoples. The American people understand the problem of Israel. Part of our sympathetic interest in the future of Israel stems from 860 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 17 [297] the fact that we, too, once proclaimed our own independence in a ringing declaration which is still an inspiration to freedom- loving peoples throughout the world. We, too, are people of diverse origins who have gathered strength from many cultures. For over three centuries, the best fighters for freedom all over the world have migrated to our shores and have added their talents and their strength to make our country great. But 25 years ago a group of our legislators banded together to write into law a principle which is repellent to every tradition we have — the repellent principle that northern Europeans and western Europeans are more desirable immigrants than any other people in the world. Now this principle is stated in the Na- tional Origins Quota System. It was con- ceived and written into law in 1924 under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. The Republican Party takes full credit for this legislation. They boasted of it in their 1932 platform. That was the dinosaur wing of the Repub- lican Party all right, although the dinosaur was younger then. But he was big enough to do a lot of damage when I proposed to the Republican 80th Congress an act to per- mit considerable numbers of displaced per- sons to enter this country under a selective migration system. The 80th Congress passed a bill, but they wrote into it provisions that intentionally discriminated against Catholics and Jews. I am proud to say that I made those pro- visions an issue in the campaign of 1948 and the Democratic 81st Congress repealed them. Once those provisions were repealed, we got a workable and effective displaced persons program going and when the act expired nearly 400,000 persons had been admitted under it. The Displaced Persons Act expired in June of this year. America is not weaker because of the admission of these displaced persons — it is stronger. We are all better for the displaced persons program. But there are still many people in Europe who need our help and we need the strength of character and the skill that they can bring to us. Among them are the victims of the Soviet tyranny who have managed to escape and cross through the Iron Curtain but who are destitute. And on this side of the Iron Cur- tain, certain densely overpopulated countries such as Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Greece have thousands of people who could help us as they help themselves. But they cannot do so under the present immi- gration laws. So this year I asked the Con- gress to modify our laws and admit an addi- tional 300,000 people over the next 3 years. I don't have to tell you what happened. The Congress passed the McCarran Act which contains nothing to help the over- population of Europe, and which reenacts and codifies the discriminatory National Origins Quota System. That bill came to me for signature. The discrimination it contained against people from eastern and southern Europe alone would have been enough to merit a veto. But in addition to that, this bill made second- class citizens out of those who had been naturalized; and it established cruel and re- strictive procedures against aliens. So I vetoed the bill and the Congress passed it over my veto. Having that new immigra- tion law on the books leaves us with a lot of unsolved problems, so I have appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Philip Perlman to study the present law and report to me before the next Congress meets. Now, let's have a look at who is responsi- ble for enacting these prejudices against for- eigners and against religious minorities into the law. Although the bill bears the name of a Democratic Senator, I fought him on this bill all the way and I am going to keep right on, because the spirit of it is contrary to everything America stands for. But the Republicans in Congress were almost solidly behind this bill. I don't think I have to tell you that the Republicans in the Senate voted 4 to 1 to override my veto. And in the 55-672^-66 86l [297] Oct. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents House they voted 7 to 1. It was they, with the help of some Democrats, who put it over. Just to give you an idea of what I mean, let me tell you about the record of the so- called "truth squad" the Republican high command named to follow me around. I am glad to have them following me, but so far they haven't come close enough to learn any of the truths I've been giving out. They keep a safe distance behind me so their dinosaur plates can protect them from get- ting any new ideas. When the McCarran bill was up in the Senate, they had three opportunities to vote for human dignity and failed every test. The first opportunity came when Senator Humphrey offered an amendment to recom- mit the McCarran bill and hold hearings on Senator Lehman's fairminded substitute. Senators Hickenlooper, Millikin, Ferguson, and Case all voted against Senator Hum- phrey's amendment. The next opportunity came when Senator Lehman offered an amendment substituting the text of his fairminded bill for the Mc- Carran bill. Again, Hickenlooper, Millikin, Ferguson, and Case, the members of the "truth squad," were right there along with their Republican cohorts to vote for their prejudices against the Lehman bill. The third chance came when I returned my vet^ message on the McCarran bill. And again, Hickenlooper, Millikin, Ferguson, and Case voted against human dignity. Re- member that two more nay votes would have sustained my veto. The list of yea votes reads like a roster of the Republican caucus in the Senate. I think you should invite the members of the "truth squad" to come and tell the truth about themselves. It would be very educa- tional and might cause them to do some much-needed soul-searching. We struck great blows for freedom when we liberated Europe, recognized Israel, and began our refugee and displaced persons programs. Throughout this whole fight, the Republicans have bitterly opposed im- portant humanitarian measures, and have actually supported religious discrimination. They are responsible for creating, over my protest, a new order of second-grade citizen- ship. They have done these things in the name of anticommunism. What a familiar ring that has! My administration has fought communism abroad and at home. We have fought it hard, and fought it well. We don't just talk about it, we do something. But the means we use preserve, not destroy, the Bill of Rights. Our means are based on legal process and on the assumption that a person is innocent until he is proven guilty. These are the oldest and most fundamental guarantees in the Bill of Rights. They are basic to the preservation of freedom. Throughout the world, since 19 17, one group of tyrants has sought to destroy these principles through communism. But other tyrants, scarcely less dangerous, have con- cealed their true purposes behind the mask of anticommunism. We who wish to pre- serve our liberties must strip off the mask of hypocrisy to see the real man behind it. When we look behind the mask of the great majority of Republicans in Congress, this is what we see: The National Origins Quota System, based on "Nordic" superiority; Discriminatory provisions in the displaced persons bill, directed against Catholics and Jews; Second-class citizenship, imposed by the McCarran immigration bill. What do these add up to? They add up to the philosophy of racial superiority de- veloped by the Nazis, which we thought we had destroyed when we defeated Nazi Germany and liberated Europe. We must be vigilant lest the philosophy of our de- feated enemy gain a hold in our own coun- try under the guise of anticommunism. Among those who voted for the McCarran bill and to override my veto was the Re- publican candidate for Vice President. Among the other Republicans were Sen- ators Jenner and McCarthy. Together with ex-Senator Revercomb, the champion of the 862 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish provisions of the original DP bill, these men have been em- braced by the Republican candidate for President. The Republican candidate for the Presi- dency cannot escape responsibility for his endorsements. He has had an attack of moral blindness, for today, he is willing to accept the very practices that identified the so-called "master race" although he took a leading part in liberating Europe from their domination. My friends, the Republican candidate for President was asked about immigration, but he had no views on the subject. Yet it gave him no difficulty to appear on the platform with ex-Senator Revercomb and endorse him for election. This is a task which was too distasteful for the Republican candidate in 1948. Here is the record of the Republican Party. They adopted immigration by exclusion in 1924. They bragged of it in 1932. They reaffirmed it in 1948, 1950, and 1952. Their platform is silent this year. Their candidate has nothing to say on the subject but he will endorse anyone who wears the Republican label, no matter what his record is on civil liberties. Now against this kind of assault on funda- mental liberties the people of our country have one champion on whom they must rely, and that is the President of the United States. That's why I vetoed the McCarran bill. You'd better be sure when you pick a President this year that you have a man who understands what the Bill of Rights is all about. And you'd better have a man who is not afraid to veto measures that en- danger those rights. My friends, these are perilous times for those who love the principle of freedom. Make no mistake about it, freedom is threat- ened today at home and abroad. We must pick a man for President who understands the sinister forces that are lying in wait for him and for you. Anti-Semitism, anti- Catholicism, and antiforeignism grow only in concealment. They have hidden them- selves within the Republican Party for years. If you want to protect and preserve freedom, you must resist the forces that work against it both abroad and at home. When you choose a President this year, you must guard against every invasion of civil liberties. You must choose a man who will not sacrifice principles to expediency. That is why I have been crisscrossing the country to bring out the facts and tear away the mask of hypocrisy from the Republican Party. That is why I am urging everyone to vote for Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, the man who talks sense to the American people. note: The President's address was read by Mr. Sargeant at I p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washing- ton. The opening words referred to Irving Edison, president of the National Jewish Welfare Board. The conference was held in Washington October 17-19. 298 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. October is, 1952 [1.] Brockton, Massachusetts (Platform on Legion Parkway, 8:18 a.m.) I am happy to be here this morning in this city which is famous for its shoes, and for its great boxing champion, Rocky Marciano. I imagine that if you were to have your "druthers" as we say in Missouri, you would much rather see Marciano than to be listen- ing to the President make a speech. This reception at this time of day, how- ever, is a real knockout. And this makes me feel that we are going to knock out the Republicans just as we did in 1948. You have some fine candidates running on the Democratic ticket this year, and if 863 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents you want to vote for yourselves and the in- terests of your great State, you will vote for David Crowley for Congress, Jack Kennedy for the Senate — he has already made a rec- ord in the Congress; and of course you are going to reelect my good friend Paul Dever for Governor for another 4 years. Now believe it or not, I am not running for office this year, even though I almost feel like it from the wonderful way you treat me up here in this great State of Massachusetts. When I leave the White House next Jan- uary, I want to see the people of the United States have a President who will fight for their interests, as I have fought for your interests for the last 7 years. I want to see this country — the greatest Republic on the face of the earth — move forward towards greater prosperity, and towards peace in the world. This year I am campaigning so hard be- cause I believe in my heart that the best way to secure peace in the world, and prosperity at home, is to elect Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Stevenson and Sparkman will fight for your interests, and they are backed up by a political party that has always stood for the welfare of all the people. The Republican candidate made a speech up in New Jersey the other day, in which he said it was sheer bunk to say that the Republicans would abandon the great social advances we have made. But the General's own party has a long record of fighting tooth and nail against everything the New Deal and the Fair Deal have done for the Amer- ican people. Take the minimum wage laws, for exam- ple. Back in 1937, when Franklin Roose- velt proposed a minimum wage law, the Re- publicans in Congress squealed like stuck pigs when that law went through. Listen to what Republican Congressman John Taber said about the minimum wage law: "You are paving the way for the abso- lute enslavement of labor." Now that is a Republican viewpoint on the minimum wage law. That comes from the man who will be chairman of the powerful Appropri- ations Committee if the Republicans get control of the Congress. Listen to what the coauthor of the Taft- Hartley Act, former Representative Fred Hartley, said about the minimum wage law, and I quote him directly: "Pass this bill," he said, "and gone with the wind is local self-government and the sovereignty of the States. Gone with the wind is our demo- cratic system of government, and all the in- stitutions we hold dear." Well, my friends, gone with the wind is Representative Hartley. He is no longer in Congress — but his kind of thinking still dominates the Republican Party. So don't believe this campaign of hooey that the Re- publicans give you at every election. All I want you to do is just look at the record. Look at the record — then make up your mind in your own interests. The Republican record is made by their votes in the Congress over the past 10 years. The record of the Democrats is made in the Congress during the past 10 years by their votes. No matter what they say in an election year, what I want you to do is to read the record — and if you do that, you will go down to the polls on election day and you will vote in your own interests. Use your heads this time. Do a little thinking. That is the only reason I am out doing what I am doing. I could sit in the White House and transact the business of the Government — which I have to transact on the train, anyway — and probably not have so much to do. But I think you ought to know what the facts are, and you can't get the facts unless somebody who knows what they are tells you about them. If you will study those facts, you will go home and think about this situation, and then you will vote for the welfare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world, you will vote for your own welfare, and you will vote for the welfare of the free world. And if you do that, Adlai Stevenson will spend the next 4 years in the White House — and the country will be safe for you. 864 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] [2.] Taunton, Massachusetts (Taunton Green, 9:10 a.m.) I can't tell you how much I appreciate this wonderful reception, and I want to thank the schoolchildren who got that sign up. That is what I need. I remember my very pleasant visit here 4 years ago. This time I am not campaigning for myself. In case you don't know it, I am not running for office. I am out on another errand. I am trying to show to the Democratic Party — which has given me all the honor any man can have in this great Republic — that I am grateful; and I am out trying to get the people to understand just exactly what the issues are — because the Republicans won't talk issues. You have in this great State a wonderful list of candidates for election. You have a young man running for the Senate who has had experience in the House of Representa- tives. He has a fine record in the House, and if you elect him to the Senate, you will be well represented in that great deliberative body in which I spent 10 years. You have a candidate for Congress, Edward Doolan, whom you ought to send to Congress this time. Now these Republicans are always screaming for a change. I certainly think this district needs a change in representa- tion in the Congress. I know you are going to elect my good friend Paul Dever for Governor, because he has made a good Governor over the last 4 years. The most important thing that you have for consideration at this time is the filling of the Office of the President of the United States. We have the most capable candidate and the best young man running for that office that we have had since Franklin Roosevelt — Adlai Stevenson. And I want you to vote for him. He has made an out- standing record as Governor of Illinois. He has served extremely well in a number of important jobs in Washington. He thor- oughly understands the complex problems of civilian government, and he will make a great President. John Sparkman, our candidate for Vice President, has shown by his record of 15 years' service in the House and the Senate that he can be trusted to continue to work for all the people in the great Democratic tra- ditions. You know, every election year the Repub- licans start complaining that the Democrats are always running against Herbert Hoover. I don't blame the Republicans for wanting to forget what happened to this country under the Hoover administration, but I can't resist telling you about the latest bit of Republican history that has come to my attention. Mr. Hoover has published his autobiog- raphy, and in the latest volume, on page 195, he tells about the apple-selling that went on during the great depression of his admin- istration. Now listen — according to Mr. Hoover, people weren't selling apples because they were broke and jobless — not at all. They were selling apples because the apple busi- ness was booming. He says that some apple growers' association got the bright idea — I am quoting out of his book — now this is what he says, ". . . and set up a system of selling apples on the street corners in many cities, thus selling their crop and raising their prices. Many persons left their jobs for the more profitable one of selling apples." And there were only 14 million people out of jobs at that time! You see, those apple-sellers were just coin- ing money. I wonder if anybody really believes that, and wants to go back to those good old days ? The Republicans haven't learned much since those terrible times. They still vote against almost every program that worked in the interest of all the people. And then when an election rolls around, they do every- thing they can to make the people forget the reactionary Republican record. For example, take their opposition to the Federal power program. During the last 20 years the New Deal and the Fair Deal have helped develop the water resources of: 865 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents the country for the generation of low-cost electric power. The outstanding example, perhaps, is the Tennessee Valley Authority. These developments have taken place in almost every section of the country — except New England. And whenever they have occurred, they have increased the prosperity of that region. Now, I have been advocating, ever since I have been President, the establishment of power pools in all the sections of the country. We have a great power pool in the North- west. We have a great power pool in the Southeast, including the Tennessee Valley Authority. We have a great power pool in the Southwest, with the Colorado River. We have a great power pool in the center of the country, beginning with the Denison Dam on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma. You have dams that have been built in the northeast corner of Arkansas, the northwest corner of Arkansas, and the northeast corner of Oklahoma. In all those places where we have cheap power,* the in- dustrial development has been tremendous. Now, I have been endeavoring, ever since 1 have been President, to get you a power pool up here in New England that would do the same thing for you, and I have had the complete opposition of the power trust in this part of the country, and the railroads. They don't want the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Bay of Fundy project built, which would put you on exactly the same basis as these other great places. Now the Republican Party, in obedience to the wishes of the private power lobby, has joined the opposition. Let us see how that affects you. They tell me you have a splen- did publicly-owned electric system here in Taunton, and I am delighted to hear that. But in Massachusetts, wholesale power for public systems like yours costs twice as much as it does in areas where public power is available under Federal river basin pro- grams. The result is that you are at a com- petitive disadvantage, and industries go to other parts of the country. If New England is to prosper as it should, you people will have to see to it that your power resources are fully developed in the public interest. But you had better not de- pend on the Republicans to help you in this effort. They are still working with the private power lobby to cripple the Federal power programs we already have. Now, to cover up that record of opposi- tion, the Republican candidate for President, and their other campaign orators, go around the country shouting slogans and scare- words about "creeping socialism" and "the philosophy of the left." Now I don't know what "the philosophy of the left" means. If it means for the welfare of the country, I am for it. Well, the American people are much smarter than the Republicans think. The American people won't go for the Republican plan of working 3 years and 1 1 months with the special interests, and then coming out at election time to tell the people how much they love them. That is what they have done every time. All you people have to do is just study the record. These fellows just try to cut your throats every year for 3 years and 1 1 months, and then they come out and tell you how much they think of you, and what they will do for you. Then they will go back and cut your throat again, if you send them to the Congress or the Presidency. It is your business that is at stake. It is your welfare that is at stake. The only rea- son I am going around over the country, doing what I am, is to be sure that you un- derstand just exactly what is before the coun- tfy' They will cover up. They don't want to discuss the issues. They want to talk about extraneous things that have no bearing on what is going to happen in the next 4 years, because they will do anything on earth to get votes and get into power. Be sure to use your judgment. If you study the record, use your head and think about what this election means. It is the most important election, in my opinion, since the Civil War. 866 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] Your interests are at stake. This great Republic's interests are at stake, and the wel- fare of the free world is at stake. If you go home and pray over these things, and study them, I will have done my duty in awakening you to the fact that if you are in- terested in the welfare of the world, the wel- fare of this Nation, and your own welfare, you can't do anything else but send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [3.] Fall River, Massachusetts (South Park, 10:12 a.m.) Mr. Chairman, Governor Dever, dis- tinguished candidates for office in Massa- chusetts, and ladies and gentlemen: I tell you I enjoyed my visit with you 4 years ago, and I am happy to stop here again. I can't tell you how very much I appre- ciated what this city of Fall River did for the President of the United States in the way of a majority in 1948 — and I want you to repeat it for my successor, Adlai Stevenson. This time I am out working for the Demo- cratic ticket, and not for myself. I think you can be proud of the Democratic slate here in Massachusetts. You couldn't get a better Senator than Jack Kennedy. He has had experience in the House. He will give you service that you will be proud of. For Congress in this 9th District, James O'Neill. For Congress, in the 14th District, Edward F. Doolan, who I understand is a native of Fall River — you probably know more about him than I do. But he looks all right to me. For Governor, my good friend Paul Dever, who needs no recommendation from me, because he has got a reputation of his own up here. He is a good Governor, and I know you are going to put him back. Now, our candidate for President is one of the finest men in public life in this genera- tion— Adlai Stevenson. He has proved his talents in civilian administration as Governor of Illinois. He is a man of honor and integrity. He has been telling the straight truth to the people, and that is how it should be. He stands on the Democratic platform, and he stands on the Democratic platform in Virginia as well as in Missouri, New York, and New England. You will find him preaching the gospel of a government of and by and for the people. The fellow on the other side has a set of stories for every State in the Union, and tells them where he thinks he can get votes. But I know you are not going to be fooled by that sort of tactics. Four years ago I told you about the Re- publican record of opposition to almost every program in the interest of the people. Well, the Republicans haven't reformed since then. They are still voting against the accomplishments of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. The only difference is that this year the Republicans have a great military hero as their candidate, and they hope his reputation will cover up their own terrible record. The Republican candidate for President has been traveling around the country with a big sign on the back of his train which says, "Look ahead, neighbor." I have never been quite sure what those three little words are supposed to mean, but I know what the sign ought to say, it ought to say "Look out, neighbor." Because if the Republicans get into power, you are really going to be in for a lot of trouble. Do you want to hold on to your job and earn a decent living wage? Well, you had better look out for these Republicans. The Republicans gave you the Taft-Hartley Act — the law that has made it harder for unions to organize. As a result, wages in nonunion parts of the country have been kept down below those paid here, and as ycu well know, this has made it very attractive for textile companies to move cut of New England. Are you drawing social security benefits? Or have you ever received an unemployment compensation check? Well, you had better look out, neighbor. If you want to keep on having these things, then you had better look out. 867 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents Now the Republicans as a class have always been against social security, but I see the Republican candidate for President, after he got out of Chicago, he is coming out for it over here in New Jersey, and that is a good thing because it shows we are right. The Republicans have opposed these pro- grams every chance they could. Just last spring, two-thirds of the Republican Con- gressmen tried to block the increase in social security insurance benefits — the increase many of you received in your social security checks this very month. Do you want to get cheaper power in New England to attract new industries? Well, you had better support the people who have always been for that sort of power. All my time in Congress, from January 3, 1935, through the end of my term as President of the United States, I have been fighting for a power pool for New England. One of the first votes I cast in the Senate was for the St. Lawrence Seaway project. The Republicans have been working for years now, with the private power lobby, to kill or cripple almost every Federal and State program to develop low-cost public power. So, if you want any suggestions about where to look in this election year, you owe it to yourself to spend some time look- ing at the voting record of both parties. The only way you can intelligently vote, the only way you can get into this campaign and find out just exactly what it means, is to take what I am telling you and study it. I am not out here to tell you what to do. I am out here telling you what is proper for your own welfare and interest. And all you need do is to know the facts. If you know the facts, and if you know the issues, and if you know what your own interest amounts to, if you know what the welfare of the country amounts to, if you are interested in the free world instead of a slave world, you can't do anything else but go to the polls on November the 4th — and send Adlai Steven- son to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [4.] Providence, Rhode Island (Address, City Hall, 11:35 a-m-> see Item 299) [5.] Westerly, Rhode Island (Rear plat- form, 12:50 p.m.) Well, it certainly is wonderful to have this most cordial welcome from Westerly, Rhode Island, the last city in which I will stop in Rhode Island. I have been most cor- dially treated in this great State, and I appre- ciate it more than I can tell you. Your officials are friends of mine. John Pastore has made one of your great Senators, and I know you are going to send him back. I have known Theodore Francis Green ever since he was Governor of Rhode Island, and I always did think highly of him. And your candidate for Congress, who is also the in- cumbent, John Fogarty, has made a wonder- ful record for himself down in Washing- ton, and I know you can't do anything but send him back. I told the people down in Providence that I was exceedingly anxious that they should elect Governor Roberts again, because I'll be out of a job on the 20th of January and I would like to have somebody there I knew in the Executive Mansion where I could go, maybe, and get a square meal. I told them also that I had started my acquaintance with Rhode Island with a Governor of Rhode Island, and that was Theodore Francis Green — and he gave me a square meal at the mansion. On our national ticket we have two of the finest candidates any party ever offered the voters — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. These men are capable and will give you just exactly the sort of administration that the people ought to have. Both these men have had great experience in public affairs. Both of them have demonstrated by their records that they care about the plain, every- day people of the country — and will work for them and serve them well. These are men 868 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [298] you can trust. They will really look out for the interests of the everyday man. I want you to think this over very care- fully. These are men you can trust to look after your interests. That is the true Demo- cratic way of a regular candidate doing busi- ness. Our party is the party with a heart for the plain, everyday people of America. But the Republican Party has a cash register for a heart — or a calculating machine — I don't know which. It's the party of the special interests and the lobbyists. It is not especially concerned with the human needs and the welfare of the people. I want you to think these things over. The only reason I am going around the country as I am is because I want to call your attention to the fact that it is your duty as the Government of the United States — and you are — the power lies with the people, but you don't exercise that power unless you vote; and when you vote you ought to vote intelligently, you ought to study the issues. And the Republicans won't tell you what the issues are, they are trying to cover them up. I am around trying to tell you what the issues are, so you can vote intelligently. If you do that, you will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House for another 4 years, and we will have good government all that time. [6.] New London, Connecticut (Rear platform, 1:22 p.m.) You see, coming to New London is getting to be a habit with me. It is my third trip here in just 4 months. Now the chairman introduced me in a manner that reminds me of an old-time story. A fellow one time was on a binge and he made the statement that he could whip anybody in the place. He didn't get any takers. Then he said he could whip anybody in the town, but he didn't get any takers. Then he said he could whip anybody in the State, and he didn't get any takers. Then he said he could whip anybody in the world, and one old fellow got up and popped him out on the street. And they asked him how it came about, and he said he took in too much territory. The first time I came here I came to start an atomic-powered submarine. That was a great day, and a historic day, because that is a start, we think, to the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. And I know it is going to work, and if they do work, then we will be facing the greatest age in the history of the world. I visited the Coast Guard Academy in September. That was a great affair, too, from my point of view. But this visit, I guess, is the most important of the three, although the purpose is somewhat different. I am here today in my capacity as head of the Democratic Party — one of the Presi- dent's many jobs — and I am here on one of the most important missions of my life, to help elect a Democratic ticket in Novem- ber. This election, my friends, is one of the most critical this country has ever faced. The future of our country — our prosperity — our hopes for peace — may hang in the balance. On the one side, there is the Democratic Party, with an unbroken record of service to the people, and one of the finest and best qualified candidates ever offered the voters — Adlai Stevenson, the Governor of Illinois. And on the other side is the Republican Party, with an unbroken record of opposi- tion to almost everything the New Deal and the Fair Deal have accomplished for the people — together with a candidate who has been captured and surrounded by the worst elements of the Old Guard Republican Party. The choice before you is whether to en- trust your future to a tested civilian leader with great experience and high principle or to an untried military man who is nothing but a babe in the woods of Senator Taft — and Taft controls the woods. I came out here to get you to think. I am making this trip so that you people will begin to think about the welfare of the world 869 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents and the welfare of this Nation. Think it over carefully. Your jobs — your future — and the welfare of the world and this coun- try are at stake. You yourselves control the Government when you exercise your right to vote. On November the 4th you must be sure before that time comes that you are registered so you can vote, because you are not worth anything to any party unless you are on the books so you can vote. Then when ycu have thought this thing over from your own viewpoint, from the viewpoint of the wel- fare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world, and from the viewpoint of the free world as a whole, you can't do any- thing else on November the 4th but send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good govern- ment. [7.] Old Saybrook, Connecticut (Rear platform, 1:55 p.m.) I am glad to be back in Connecticut again today. I guess all of you are acquainted with the fact that I am doing a litde campaigning for the Democratic ticket. I am not working for myself this time, like I was when I was here before. I am trying to help the party that has enabled me to have the highest honor that a man can have in the world. I want to show my gratitude, so I want that party to continue to run the Government. I know all your candidates here in Con- necticut and I think well of them. I have known Bill Benton for a long time, and he has been a good Senator, and you ought to keep him there. Abe Ribicoff has also done an excellent job in the House of Repre- sentatives, and I know you will send him to the Senate where he can still do a wonder- ful job. For Congress Bill Citron will rep- resent you well. And for Congressman at Large, I suggest to you that you send Stanley Pribyson to the Congress. I hope you will elect all these good men, so that they can give you the proper representation in the Con- gress of the United States — which passes the bills and makes the policy that affects every one of you in some way or another. One of the great public servants of the United States, I understand, is a native of your town. He was Price Control Admin- istrator, he was Governor of Connecticut, and now I have made him Ambassador to India — and that is Chet Bowles. And he is doing one wonderful job over there. He is one of our best Ambassadors. He has im- proved the relations with India and us 100 percent since he has been over there. Now one of the principal things I am in- terested in are the candidates for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. You must send them to Washington this time. It is most important. It is most important that you do that for your own welfare. These are good men, with fine records of public service. They are men you can trust to work for you, and look out for your interests. And I say to you, my friends, in all sincerity, I don't think you can trust the Republican Party to look out for your interests. They never have, and I don't think they ever will. Regardless of what their good five-star candidate may say, he can't control the Con- gress. Senator Taft will be the leader in the Congress if the Republicans obtain control of this Government. He will run the Gov- ernment. You might just as well elect Taft President as to elect that Republican Old Guard general who has been taken over by them. You should think this over very care- fully because it affects you, as I said awhile ago, right down to your pocketbook. It af- fects your job — it affects the welfare of this country. And it is up to you to see that the welfare of this country and the welfare of the world is maintained on a basis that will bring the greatest age in history. You can do it — if you do the right thing at the polls on November the 4th — and we will have Adlai Stevenson for President the next 4 870 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] years and this country will go along as it has gone along — for the welfare of all the people, and not for the special interests. [8.] New Haven, Connecticut (Platform near station, 2:45 p.m.) I rather liked that slip. You know, I would feel exceedingly bad if everybody felt that they were happy that I was getting out of the White House. It makes me very happy when the vast majority of people feel as your former Congressman did here, that he would like to have me back there. But I weighed that situation very, very care- fully long ago and I think it is best for the country. I think it is best for the Demo- cratic Party that we have new leadership. I think it is best, and will cement the party so that we will have 20 more years of pro- gressive government. And I am going to help you to get it. I have seen a great deal of New England since I left here Thursday morning. I am glad to be back now to talk to you again. You have a wonderful group of men on the Democratic ticket here in Connecticut. Your two candidates for Senator — your present Senator, Bill Benton — and your candidate for Senator, Abe Ribicoff — have been men who have been working in the interests of all the people — in the Congress — and you ought to keep them there. John McGuire will make you an excellent Representative in the House. And Stanley Pribyson will do a job for you that you will be proud of, I am sure of that. I want to tell you something about our candidate for President — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. You know he has been Gover- nor of Illinois for 4 years now, and he has done a great job. He has had some other jobs, too, where he has shown how well- qualified he is for the Presidency. I want to tell you about one of them now, a job he did in Italy during the war. In 1 94 1 Adlai Stevenson came down to Washington as Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy. He stayed on that assignment throughout most of the war, working right beside the Secretary on a great number of top-level problems. Then in the fall of 1943 the Italian Government surrendered to the allies. We did not hold all of Italy, but the southern part was in our hands. The Germans had applied the scorched earth policy before they retreated — the port of Naples was a total wreck. President Roosevelt got worried about what was to be- come of the country and the people. So he borrowed Adlai Stevenson from the Navy Department, and sent him to Italy to survey conditions there. Stevenson went all over Sicily and south- ern Italy, and he got a firsthand picture of the poverty and misery in that country. Then he came home and made his report. It was an excellent report — history-tnaldng in many ways. For he had grasped clearly in this experience the basic ideas which later came to be known as the Marshall plan. Stevenson advised us in 1944 tnat tempo- rary relief for the Italian people was essential, but not enough. He pointed out that we would have to help the Italian people restore essential industry and agriculture and commerce. And unless we did that, he told us, Italy would not become a free coun- try again. The American Government did take action, first in Italy and later throughout all Western Europe. The Marshall plan itself was a great expansion of the ideas which Stevenson brought back from Italy. It is fitting and proper that the Demo- cratic Party should have chosen as its new leader a man who understands and helped to build our positive policies toward free Italy and all Western Europe. For it is the Democratic Party that through all the years since World War II has created and ad- ministered the programs that have saved Western Europe from the Communists. In times past we had support from a large segment of the Republicans in Congress, led by Senator Vandenberg. But, since Senator Vandenberg fell ill 3 years ago, his party 871 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents has swung more and more completely into the hands of the extremists, the Old Guard isolationists — the enemies of our whole foreign policy. These men have voted again and again to cut the funds for the economic and military aid which have saved Europe from communism. As early as 1949, 70 percent of the Re- publican Senators and 95 percent of the Re- publican Congressmen voted for deep cuts in military aid for Italy and other friendly European countries. In 1950 more than four-fifths of the Republican Senators voted, two separate times, for crippling cuts in the Marshall plan. In 1951 the Republi- can Senators voted 8 and 9 to 1, six differ- ent times, to cripple economic aid for Italy and the rest of Europe — and to cut military aid as well. Their colleagues in the House did exactly the same thing. In 1952, this year, mind you, three-fourths of the Republi- can Senators and nine-tenths of the Republi- can Congressmen voted for disastrous slashes in economic and military aid for free Europe. That record makes it perfectly clear that you cannot count on the Republicans in Congress to carry on the fight to save Europe from communism. And the Re- publican candidate for President has now made it perfectly plain that you can't count on him, either. When this matter was before the Con- gress last spring, the General sent word that in his judgment a cut of $1 billion, while unfortunate, could be sustained if necessary. He warned, however, that any further cuts would be, and I quote: "heavily and seriously felt" and would have profound effects on the morale and effort of our allies. Now that is the opinion of General Eisen- hower before he became a candidate. Never- theless, the Republicans in Congress, with the aid of a few Democrats, proceeded to cut nearly $2 billion from the funds which I had requested. And shortly after, without a word of pro- test, without even a murmur, that same gen- eral became the Republican candidate for President. And he then endorsed for reelec- tion all the Congressmen and Senators who had ignored his warnings and had ganged up against his task to strengthen Europe. It is a sad thing that the great General, who was once a symbol to all free Europe,, should now emerge as just another Repub- lican politician, the willing captive of the Old Guard isolationists who have opposed everything he was supposed to stand for. Fortunately, the Democratic Party stands firm in its support for our free allies. It has been our record in the past. It is pledged in our party platform, and it is guaranteed by the character and understand- ing of our candidate for President. My friends, I think the lesson is plain. I urge you all to remember what I have told you, and I ask you to vote accordingly. Register today, so that you will be able to go to the polls on November the 4th, and vote in your own interests and in the intei- ests of the country. Now, you are the Government — as I have told you time and again while I was in Connecticut before — it is up to you. It is up to you to decide whether you want a forward- looking administration of this Government, or whether you want to turn the wheels back to 1896 — and I don't think you want to do that. And if you do it, get yourselves registered, and then vote the Democratic ticket and the country will be safe another 4 years. [9.] Bridgeport, Connecticut (Rear plat- form, 3:25 p.m.) Thank you very much for this wonderful reception. I am happy to be able to visit you again. This time I am campaigning for somebody else and not for myself. I have been highly pleased at the reception I have had in the great State of Connecticut. I have been across it both ways, north and south, and east and west, in the last 2 or 3 days, and I have been cordially received — and I appreciate it. I have become acquainted with your 872 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [298] Democratic candidates here in this State, too, and I am sure they will give you the proper representation in Washington. Bill Ben- ton has been your Senator — or will be, Jan- uary 3d — 6 years, and he has done a won- derful job in the Senate, and I want you to send him back. Abe Ribicoff is running for the short term of 4 years. He has been a wonderful servant of yours in the House of Representatives, and he will make you a good Senator. You ought to send Joe Lyford to Congress, and you ought to elect Stanley Pribyson as your Congressman at Large. They are both doing a good job. Now the Democratic Party has two of the finest men of this generation at the head of its ticket — Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man. They are men who can stand on their records of achievement in the affairs of civilian government. They are men of honor and integrity, and they have shown that they understand the basic principles that make our country the greatest Republic in all history. You know, every election year we Demo- crats have a special problem on our hands. Besides putting our own record and program before the people, we have to make sure that they understand the real record of the Republicans in Congress. We have to do this because over the years the Republicans have developed an amazing talent for remaking history. That's another way of saying that they don't tell the truth. Between elections, the Republicans in Congress spend their time building up a record of opposition and obstruction to the forward-looking programs of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. But a few weeks before an election rolls around, the Republican leaders and the one-party press start to tell the people over and over again that the Re- publicans were not really opposed to these programs. They finally get to the point of claiming that the Republicans have been in favor of these programs all the time. They are only in favor of them just a short time before the election. This is the "me too" approach, and the Republicans are trying it this election year, as usual. A good example is the situation with regard to our basic immigration policy. Our present immigration laws are based upon an un-American theory of racial supe- riority. They say, in effect, that the so-called Nordics from England and northern Europe are superior to persons born in countries like Portugal, Italy, Greece, Hungary, and Poland. So each year our doors are closed to all but a few people from southern and eastern Europe. The Democratic Party has long been working to correct this disgraceful situa- tion. But the Republican candidate for President has just waked up to the shocking injustice of these restrictions. Last night, at Newark, New Jersey, the Republican candidate finally said "me too" about the discriminatory features of our immigration laws. My friends, it was a good statement, in fact it was taken partly from my veto mes- sage. But why did the General take so long to learn about this serious problem and to come around to the position of the Demo- cratic Party? I will tell you why. The Re- publican record on this subject is bad, and the General wanted to keep quiet about it if he could. First of all, the present discriminatory provisions of our immigration laws were adopted in the ic^o's by a Republican ad- ministration. The Republicans invented this unfair system, and apparently most of them are still proud of it. This year the Congress had a chance once and for all to get rid of the discriminatory provisions in our immigration law. And what happened? Eighty-eight percent of the Republicans in the House and 80 per- cent of the Republicans in the Senate voted to pass that horrible McCarran Act over my veto. That act is just as biased against im- migrants from the countries of southern and eastern Europe, and it gives second-class status to naturalized citizens in this country. Now it is true that the new law bears the name of a Democrat, but my friends, he is 873 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents not my kind of a Democrat. He does not speak for the Democratic Party, either. Men like your own Bill Benton fought hard in the Senate against this bill. Our vice-presi- dential candidate, John Sparkman, voted against it. The Democratic platform pledges a fight to rid our laws of these shameful restrictions. I have already appointed a special commis- sion to get all the facts, and they have been holding public hearings throughout the country. Now, what have the Republicans done about it? They have made one of the Senators who voted to override my veto the Republican candidate for Vice President. The General has embraced on his "great crusade" such ex- pert peddlers of bigotry as Jenner and Mc- Carthy, who also voted to override that veto. I am told that the Republicans of this State are to welcome Senator McCarthy for a sec- ond time in the campaign. The Republican leaders and the candi- dates for the Senate, to their shame, openly embraced him here in Bridgeport a couple of weeks ago. Even though they may welcome his fraudulent attacks on Senator Benton and on former Senator Brien McMahon, how can they reconcile their welcome of him with his fierce and savage attack on former Senator Raymond Baldwin, now Justice Baldwin of your Supreme Court? With utter disregard for Senator Bald- win's Republican record as your Governor and Senator, McCarthy assailed him viciously on the floor of the Senate. He called him "criminally responsible" in the Malmedy massacre case. It was Senator McMahon, a Democrat, who sprang to his feet to defend Senator Baldwin. For reasons of his own, McCarthy fought for the Nazis who, during the Battle of the Bulge, had perpetrated this infamous massacre of our American soldiers. He at- tacked Senator Baldwin for defending our American soldiers who, after the war, sought to bring the Nazi murderers to justice. He treated Justice Baldwin with the same ruthless disregard of the truth as he has shown throughout his career in the Senate. There are those in the Senate and many else- where who think that Senator Baldwin's resignation from the Senate was precipitated by McCarthy's vilification of him. This is the man, McCarthy, whom the Re- publicans of Connecticut are now willing to endorse "without reservations," as their na- tional committeeman put it, right here in your Klein Memorial Hall. Now I don't believe in that sort of busi- ness. There are plenty of people that I don't approve of. I don't care what their politics are — if they are wrong, I'm "agin 'em." If they are right, I don't care what their politics are, I'm "for 'em." And I have made that perfectly plain all over this United States, and I am out here now trying to let the people of the country know the men and the party that they can trust to handle their immigration problems, and all the other important issues in accord- ance with the principles that have made us the greatest and most prosperous country in the history of the world. That is why, on November the 4th, if you will use a little judgment, if you will use a little thought, if you understand the issues and look at them — the Republicans won't tell you what they are, they are trying to cover them up because they can't afford to have them published — if you will inform your- selves and vote for the welfare of the free world, vote for the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and vote for your own interests — if you do that, we will have Adlai Stevenson in the President's Office for the next 4 years, and the country will be safe. [10.] Norwalk, Connecticut (Rear plat- form, 4 p.m.) I am most happy to be here this afternoon, and I appreciate the politeness and kind re- ception of these young men over here — they are being properly raised, I am sure. I have come here to ask you to vote for 874 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [298] the Democratic ticket for President and Vice President, and for the Senate and the Con- gress. The Democratic Party in Connecti- cut is putting up some of the finest men I have ever seen as candidates for the Con- gress. Your present Senator, Bill Benton, is a very able person. He has done you a good job in the United States Senate; and your candidate for Senator is an able Con- gressman: Abe Ribicoff, who is replacing your other great Senator, Brien McMahon. You have a candidate for Congress in Joe Lyford, who is a wonderful fellow and I am sure that Stanley Pribyson will make you a good Congressman at Large. Now the presidential candidate is the finest new leader to come along since Frank- lin Roosevelt in 1932. You know, the Presi- dent of the United States has to make some of the most important decisions, decisions that can make the difference between pros- perity or depression, the difference between peace and war. He is the man who has to decide about using the atomic bomb. With Adlai Stevenson in the White House, you will have a President who thinks always of what is best for all of us, and the whole country. He has learned a great deal about civil government in Washington, and in the United Nations, and as Governor of a great State. And he won't have to take the word of any rich man's lobbyist, or any Old Guard Senator about what is good for the American people. I could not talk to the people of Norwalk without a word of tribute to your great son, Brien McMahon. He was an outstanding Senator. His loss will be felt not only among you people here in Connecticut, but by all Americans and by the ordinary people all over the world. All of you remember the great fight Brien McMahon waged to take atomic energy out of the hands of the military and put it under civilian control. He won that fight, and thanks to his victory, we have made amazing progress in the development of our atomic power. And we have made it safely, with- out entrusting that awful power to military men untrained in the arts of peace. And here it is, only 2 months since Brien McMahon's death, and we are being asked to turn that power back to the generals. The American people, through their Con- gress, said in 1946 that they don't want the power in military hands, they want it under firm civilian control, in line with the Ameri- can tradition that military men take orders from the people, and not the other way around. I don't think we are ready to re- verse that decision or that tradition in this election. Senator McMahon had another vision. He knew what was needed to build a last- ing peace in the world. Brien McMahon was no timid politician who was willing to compromise his own ideas for the sake of gaining votes. He spoke out boldly and clearly. He urged us to extend the helping hand of friendship and support to all the free peoples of the world. He didn't dodge the fact that this might be expensive. He was willing to pay the price. And he didn't duck the issue when elections came around. Now contrast his vision and his states- manship with the brand of pussyfooting and confusion that is coming from the Republican camp. Since the Republican candidate made his great surrender to Taft and Jenner and McCarthy, he has turned his back on all the things he has stood for when he was Army Chief of Staff and Commander of the NATO forces in Europe. He has adopted the old Republican line about slashing mili- tary spending and aid to our allies. That means that he has endorsed the stand of the Old Guard Republicans. These are the men who voted for weak- ening our defenses in 194 1, before Pearl Harbor. They voted to weaken our security in 1949 and 1950, before Korea. And just this year, they voted to cut deeply and pain- fully into the NATO program their candi- date used to command. I have said before, that I made a mistake about the Republican candidate. I once 875 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents thought he believed in the things we were all working for. But he has shown in this campaign that he didn't believe in them very deeply. He did not believe in them enough to stand up for them against the pressure of the worst, isolationist, Old Guard elements in his own party. Now remember that. Remember that. Be sure you remember that, because if you don't remember it, you will put yourselves in the position that you will wish you weren't in — in less than 1 year. All you need do is to go home and think about the issues that are before this great country. If you will do that, if you will study them, if you will study your own interests, if you will study the welfare of the Nation, if you will study the welfare of the free world, you will find that the only thing that is left for you to do is to send Adlai Steven- son to the White House, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [11.] Stamford, Connecticut (Rear plat- form, 4:25p.m.) Thank you very much for that most cordial, courteous reception. I appreciate it most highly. I have come here to ask you to vote the Democratic ticket for President and Vice President, and to send Democrats to the Senate and the Congress. The Democratic Party in Connecticut is putting up some of the finest men I have ever seen as candidates for Congress. For Sen- ator, Bill Benton who has served you 6 years, and he has done a good job of it. For the other Senator to succeed Brien McMahon, you have Abe Ribicoff , who has a record in Congress that is beyond compare — he will do you a good job as Senator. You also have an excellent young man in Joe Lyford for Congress. For Congressman at Large, Stan- ley Pribyson. I am sure they will do you a wonderful job. Now the presidential candidate is the finest new leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. You know, the President of the United States has to make some of the most important decisions — decisions that can make the difference between prosperity or depression, the difference between peace or war. He is the man who has to decide about the use of the atomic bomb. With Adlai Stevenson in the White House, you will have a President who thinks always of what is best for you and for the country. He has learned a great deal about civil government in Washington, in the United Nations, and as Governor of a great State. And he won't have to take the word of any rich man's lobbyist or any Old Guard Senator about what is good for the American people. I could not talk to you without adver- tising the fact that this part of the world is absolutely essential to the welfare of the whole country. You have in this great State of Connecticut, which I have been traveling around for the last — oh, I have been across Connecticut north and south, and I have been across it east and west, and I have never seen a more prosperous looking coun- try. And the Republicans say that we are going to the dogs — we don't have anything worthwhile — we don't have any jobs. We have only got 62 million jobs in this coun- try. They said we never could do that. We are living in an eventful period in the Nation's history, and we must have in the White House a man endowed with a knowledge of civilian affairs and an under- standing of the great American principles of patience and integrity. Adlai Stevenson has shown that he possesses these qualities, but I am sorry to say the same cannot be said about the Re- publican candidate for President. He is a great military leader, but he has had no experience, and he has not shown the quali- ties that are required for a man to live the next 4 years in the White House. And that's up to you. You have got to make up your mind — you are very, very courteous people — you have got to make up your mind what you want for this country's welfare for the next 4 years. And it is up to 876 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] you. I am only going around the country, giving you the facts as they affect your wel- fare for the next 4 years. I know more about what is necessary for the continuation of the present situation of prosperity — the welfare of the world and peace in the world — I think, than any other man in this country. And I felt that I owed it to the people of this country to let them know just exactly what the facts are. And the only way you can find them out is for me to tell you about them. That is what I am doing. Now, go home. Study the situation. Look up the records of the candidates. Find out what they know, and what they don't know. Find out the records of the candidates for Congress on the Republican side, and on the Democratic side. And if you do that, you can't do but one thing and that is to vote for the welfare of the free world, the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and for your own welfare right here at home. And if you do that, we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House the next 4 years. [12.] New Rochelle, New York (Rear platform, 5 p.m.) I appreciate that very much. Thank you for that welcome back into this great State of New York. The mayor tells me that he has been the Democratic mayor of this Re- publican city for 13 years. I congratulate him. Now, they tell me that Westchester County is about the richest county in the world — and I think it is. It looks like that to me, anyway. And I don't know how you can believe those Republican scare-stories that our country is going to the dogs. I am just as sure as I stand here that you can't believe them. Now I don't know whether you are aware of the fact or not, but I am not running for office. I have had everything that a man can expect from the great Democratic Party, and I am campaigning now just as if I were running for office, to show that I am grate- ful for what the Democratic Party has done for me. I am also doing that because I think this is one of the most important elections, if not the most important election, since the Civil War. In fact, I am saying to you that I am much more interested in a victory this time, if it is possible, than I was in 1948 — and I was pretty anxious for a victory then. The Democratic nominee for President is the finest new leader to come forward since New York State produced Franklin Roose- velt back in 1932. He has made a great record as Governor of Illinois, just as Frank- lin Roosevelt made a great record as Gov- ernor of New York. Governor Stevenson is a man of principle. He lets you know where he stands on the issues, and he doesn't run around the coun- try taking one position in New York, and another position in New Orleans. My friends, I want to bring it home to you, if I may, that the most powerful office in the world — the most powerful office in the history of the world, is the Presidential Of- fice of the United States of America. The man who holds that job must make many grave decisions which may determine whether or not we shall live in a peaceful world. The making of these decisions calls for courage and a deep understanding of the great issues of our time. It is necessary for a man in the position of President of the United States to under- stand completely world affairs all the way around the world, because we have become — whether we like it or not — the most powerful Nation in the history of the world, and with that power goes responsibility. And respon- sibility requires that the man who has to make the decisions in the Presidential Office must know the whole picture. He not only must know his own country from Maine to California, and from the State of Washing- ton to Florida, he must also know what con- stitutes freedom for the free nations of the world — and how to maintain it. And I am asking you to inform your- selves on these subjects. They are most 877 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents important. I am very fond, and always have been, of the Republican candidate for Presi- dent. I made him Chief of Staff. I ap- pointed him to command the free nations' rehabilitation of their military affairs in Europe. He has been my military adviser since — he became one of my military advisers and one in whom I had the utmost confidence since I became President of the United States. He has been a part of the foreign policy which we have been carrying on in an effort to maintain peace in the world, and to pre- vent the Communists from controlling the world. He knows the facts in connection with what is taking place. He understands thoroughly and completely why the policies have been pursued, because he has been a part of them, and I had every confidence that he would stick by that situation. Until he had his interview with Taft here in New York, he was on the side of the forward-looking people who want to main- tain peace in the world. After he talked to Taft, he changed his position, and I never had anything in the world to make me as sad as what he did. I thought he would be pressure-proof. But I have found — I have found, after studying history, and after this experience I have had, that generals are not pressure-proof in politics. They have had no experience in what to do in politics. Now, after the Republican convention, Ike said that he was going to start on a "great crusade." And I wondered what that cru- sade would be. And I waited and I waited, but Ike — as is usual with a general in com- mand of troops — was waiting for higher authority to tell him what to do. After Taft and the Old Guard Republi- cans had told him what he ought to do, he started out on a crusade, and that crusade pointed one way in New York City, it pointed another way in Missouri, it pointed another way in New Orleans, it pointed another way in the Northwest. And I still don't know what Ike's crusade is. The facts in the case are that there never was a time in the history of the world when a country — a Republic such as ours — has been in the condition of prosperity that it is in now. There are more people in jobs than ever before in the history of the world. We have 62 million jobs in this country. And the Republicans have always been advocating the theme of the Soviet Union, that we would go to pieces after the end of World War II. We did not. We improved our condition after the end of the Second World War — and that condition has been improving ever since. What I am anxious to get over to you is an effort on your part to use your brains in this campaign. I want you to inform yourselves. I want you to find out what the facts are. The only reason I came out on this campaign — as I told you to begin with — is because I am grateful for what the Democratic Party has done for me. And I also wanted to set the people to thinking. I want them to think about their responsibili- ties. The people of this country are the Government. They exercise the power of the Government when they go to the polls on election day. And unless you inform yourselves on exactly what the issues are, and what the position of the two parties may be, you can't vote intelligendy. I am asking you to study the record of the Republicans in Congress. That is the record on which we have to run. I am asking you to study the record of the Democrats in the Congress. That is the record on which we have to run. And if you do that, and inform yourselves, as you should, you will find that the welfare of this country, and our future position in the world, is necessarily in the hands of the Democratic Party for the next 4 years. All I am asking you to do — all I am asking you to do is not to listen to sentimental reasons. Don't vote for somebody because he has worn a brass hat. Don't vote for somebody because he has been a Governor. Vote for somebody who has the principle 878 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [298] to stand on the Democratic platform which concretely states what this country needs. There is no equivocation in that platform. It is right on all the issues, and it states all the issues plainly Now the Republican platform — as I have said before — is about the lousiest platform I have read since I have been in politics. It tries to mean all things to all people. You can't do that. You have got to take a stand on what you think is right. And if it is right, you can go out and sell it to the peo- ple, and they will be with you. Now what I am trying to do is tell you that your interests are at stake. If you use good judgment, and use your brains, you can't do anything else but send John Cashmore to the Senate, elect this young lady here to the Congress — and put Adlai Stevenson in the White House, and we will be on safe ground for another 4 years. [13.] New York City, New York (10th Street and 2d Avenue, 7:32 p.m.) Mr. Congressman, ladies and gentlemen: I consider this a very, very, very great honor. It is the first time I have ever had an experience like this — and I have been through a lot of things in the last 30 years in politics. I want to say to you that I am now making an endeavor to get the facts to the people so they will understand just exacdy what this campaign means, and how important it is. I am not running for anything. I want to impress that upon you. I will be out of a job on the 20th of January, but I am one of those fellows who is not ungrateful to the great party that has given me the chance to attain the highest honor in the history of the world — and that is the Presidency of the United States, the most powerful office in the world. I am grateful, and I am trying to show that gratefulness by helping the Democratic Party in this campaign. It is not usual for people who get every- thing in the world from a party to be grate- ful. They always want something more. I don't. I have had all I deserve. Now, after you understand that, I want to impress upon you that if you want this country to continue in its present prosperous condition, you want to be sure and examine the issues in this campaign. I want you to inform yourselves. That's all I ask you. I am going around over the country stating the facts and the record. You have to know the record of the Republicans in Congress, and that is the basis on which you can decide what is best for you. You ought to know the record of the Democrats in Congress, and that is the basis on which you can decide which is best for you. I am telling you that the record of the Republicans has not been in the interests of the people. They have been against those things which are best for the country, which are best for you, and which are best for the world. I am very anxious — very anxious — for you to inform yourselves. Now you have a chance here to send a man to the United States Senate who will cooperate with Senator Lehman — who has always been on the right side of all the questions where the people are concerned. You have a delega- tion in Congress — one of whom just intro- duced me — that are the same sort of people; and unless the Congress is the right sort of Congress, it doesn't do you much good to have a man in the White House except as a block when they try to put something over that is wrong. I want to say to you if I hadn't been in the White House when that "good-for-nothing" 80th Congress was down there, there wouldn't be anything left of the New Deal or the Fair Deal. Now, that is what you are faced with right now. That is exacdy what you are faced with right now. If you turn the White House and the Congress both over to the Republicans, whose interests are selfish, who work for 879 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents the lobbies, who work for the special interests, then you get just exactly what you deserve. Now I want to tell you something. I hope you will consider all these things — all these vitally important things. I hope you will go home and pray over it. I hope you will then decide to do the thing that is best for you, that is best for this great Nation of ours, that is best for peace in the world. And if you do that, Adlai Stevenson will spend the next 4 years in the White House — and the country will be safe. [14.] New York City, New York (Wil- liamsburg Bridge Plaza, 8 p.m.) I can't tell you — words fail me. I don't think that I have ever had such a reception — and I have had many a reception, both here and at home. But I believe this is the great- est of them all. I am highly pleased with the way the peo- ple have been turning out on this trip which I have been making around over the coun- try. It shows that they want to hear about the real issues, and they want the truth in this campaign — and that is what I am giving them. I am giving them the facts, and the truth — and they haven't had a chance to get them any other way. Now I have been in elective public office in these United States of ours for 30 years. In every office I have served, I have tried to do the best I can. That is the only thing I know how to do, is just to do the best I can. I am not a genius, or anything of that kind. But now I have served as President of the United States for the last 7 years. I have given it all I have. I think 30 years in elec- tive public office is quite enough for one man. And I am hoping that I am making a contribution for the continuation of the policies which have been pursued by Frank- lin Roosevelt and myself for the past 20 years. I am grateful to the Democratic Party for what it has done for me. I am not like some of these birds who get everything they can out of a party, and get rich, and go to another party. The party has given me everything I could ever hope to have — and I didn't get rich at it, either. But as long as I live, I ex- pect to make every contribution I possibly can for the welfare of this country. And I am going to be a Democrat until I die. Now, you have a fine slate of Democratic candidates. We need these men in the Con- gress. Men like John Cashmore in the Senate, and Arthur Klein in the House, and Louis Heller and the other fine Congressmen from this neighborhood. The Democratic Party this year is headed by two of the finest men in public life — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. My friends, they understand the basic principles which make our country the greatest Republic in the history of the world. And they are run- ning for office on a party platform that is built around one basic objective; and that objective is the welfare of the whole people, not just a few of them, but all the people. I want you to listen to me carefully. We need a Democratic President in the White House, and a solid Democratic Congress to work with him. There are many reasons for this, but I want to tell you about one of them here tonight. I want to tell you about the situation re- garding our immigration laws. They are in disgraceful shape, and we must have action to improve them. These laws are based upon the theory of racial superiority. They discriminate against the peoples from southern and eastern Europe. They give a second-class status to all naturalized citizens. Now this is a terrible, un-American business. Now, how did that immigration law get into such bad shape? To begin with, the principle of racial superiority was first de- veloped by a Republican Congress and a Republican administration in 1924. The Republicans invented the idea, and they still believe in it. That is shown by the way they act whenever an immigration bill comes be- fore the Congress. There, this year, the Congress passed — over my veto — a law known as the McCarran Act, which re- 880 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [298] enacted these provisions discriminating against people from certain countries. Now it is true that this new law bears the name of a Democratic Senator. It is also true that it was supported by some Demo- crats as well as Republicans. But if the Republicans in the Senate had done as well as the Democrats, my veto would have been sustained. Good Democrats like Herbert Lehman voted against this discriminatory law. So did our candidate for Vice Presi- dent, John Sparkman. Senator Sparkman is a true friend of the people. You can count on him to be on your side every time. At our convention in July, the Democratic Party wrote into our platform a pledge to re- write this McCarran Act. I have already set up a commission to get the facts on how this unfair law operates. Last night — now this is most interesting — most interesting — last night, at Newark, New Jersey, the Republican candidate for President said he too believed we must end the rank injustice in our immigration laws. Now I am delighted to learn that the Gen- eral has finally seen the light. Of course, he could have understood the whole issue months ago, if he just read my veto message on the McCarran bill. But I doubt if the General would be able to deliver on his be- lated promise to get rid of these unfair re- strictions. First of all, his party did not think enough of the whole problem to even mention it in their party platform. And he himself has endorsed for reelection — now listen to this — Senator Revercomb of West Virginia — a man Tom Dewey refused to support in 1948 because of this issue. And then there is this matter of the General's handpicked running mate, his candidate for Vice President, who voted with Revercomb in 1948, and with Mc- Carran in 1952. Now that's the kind of man that's running for Vice President on the Republican ticket. And also, there are Jenner and McCarthy, whom the General now supports, along with all the other Republican Senators who voted to put this wicked law on the books. I really don't think we can expect much help from the Republicans in correcting the in- justices in the immigration laws. Now this is the kind of story that can be repeated on issue after issue. That is why a Democratic victory is so important to you. Every issue that has been for the welfare of the people — like public housing — the Re- publicans have been against. I asked for 75,000 units of public housing, and they cut it down to 5,000. And I had an awful time getting about 35,000 or 40,000 units, and they were against it to a man. Just read the record. If you will do that on all these things — social security, or any other thing that the Democrats have been for in the Fair Deal and the New Deal, that is for the benefit of the people — you will find the Republicans almost unanimously against it. And now they are trying to take over. They say that social security is a bipartisan affair. If you will look up social security when it was passed, you will find they all voted against it in the Congress. It turned out to be a good thing. Now they would like to take credit for it, but I think you are too smart to let them do it. At least, I hope you are. Now this election, in my opinion, is the most important election since the Civil War. This election decides our policy toward the world — toward the free world. This election decides the domestic policy, as to whether we are going to have a government that is for the people, or whether we are going to have a government of special interests. It is your interests that are at stake. I want you to study these issues. I want you to look at the record carefully. I want you to go home and pray over them, and then I want you to think — think of your interests, think of the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, think what this means to the free world if we go isolation- ist, and that is what is ahead of us if we elect a Republican President. When you have thought these things over, when you have studied them carefully, then go to the polls and vote the Democratic 881 [298] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents ticket, and we will have Adlai Stevenson for President for the next 4 years — and the coun- try will be safe. [15.] Brooklyn, New York (Address at the Eastern Parkway Arena, 9:30 p.m., see Item 300) note: In the course of his remarks on October 18 the President referred to Rocky Marciano, former heavyweight champion of the world; David J. Crow- ley, Democratic candidate for Representative, Repre- sentative John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Governor Paul A. Dever, all of Massachusetts; Representative John Taber of New York; Edward F. Doolan and James F. O'Neill, Democratic candidates for Representative from Massachusetts; Senators John O. Pastore and Theo- dore Francis Green, Representative John E. Fogarty, and Governor Dennis J. Roberts, all of Rhode Island; Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio; Dr. C. John Satti, who introduced the President in New London, Sen- ator William Benton, Representative Abraham A. Ribicoff, Democratic candidate for the position left vacant by the death of Senator Brien McMahon (see Item 219), William M. Citron and Stanley J. Priby- son, Democratic candidates for Representative, Chester Bowles, U.S. Ambassador to India and Nepal and former Governor, James P. Geelan, former Representative, who introduced the President at New Haven, Representative John McGuire, Joseph P. Lyford, Democratic candidate for Representative, and Raymond Baldwin, former Senator and Asso- ciate Justice of the State Supreme Court, all of Connecticut; Mayor Stanley W. Church of New Rochelle, John Cashmore, Democratic candidate for Senator, Senator Herbert H. Lehman, and Repre- sentatives Arthur G. Klein, Louis B. Heller, and Edna F. Kelly, all of New York. 299 Address at the City Hall in Providence, Rhode Island. October 18, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Governor Roberts, dis- tinguished guests: It is a pleasure for me to be with you this morning. I remember very, very well this meeting out here in 1948. I received a most cordial welcome and the beautiful part about it was that welcome also meant that I was go- ing to be elected President of the United States. I appreciate the cordiality of your welcome. Nothing could equal it. It makes me feel that maybe I am making a contri- bution to the welfare of the country, when people turn out in these numbers to hear what I have to say. I remember when I was here before. It was just a week before the election, and it was just about this time of day. And I expect a lot of you folks were out here at that time, too, and you treated me then as you are now. I don't think I ever had a more cordial welcome in that whole campaign. I brought you some good news that morn- ing. I told you just what was going to happen on election day. What I told you then turned out to be just about right, despite the fact that a lot of people at that time thought I was talking through my hat. Those people had a great surprise the day after the election of 1948. Now, I will tell you something about what is going to happen this year. We're going to win another great victory for the Demo- cratic Party and for the American people on November 4th. As usual, you Democrats of Rhode Island are going to be right up there at the head of the procession. As our candidate for President this year, we have one of the ablest men ever nomi- nated for that office — Adlai Stevenson. He has made a great record as Governor of Illinois. His character and his experi- ence qualify him to fill the most important political office in the world today — the Presi- dency of the United States. I know he has won your admiration by the intelligent and forthright manner in which he has been discussing the issues of this campaign. Unfortunately, he is the only candidate for 882 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [299] President who has enough respect for your intelligence to talk sensibly to you about the issues. His Republican opponent makes no secret of the fact that he is trying to play on your emotions, instead of appealing to your com- monsense. And he has sunk pretty low in that emotional campaign, as I'm going to prove to you. The Republican candidate for President is a professional soldier. We are entitled to assume that the one thing he understands is war. Now, I have taken steps to see to it that he is kept informed during this campaign about the situation in Korea. I have seen to it that he gets regular top secret reports from the Central Intelligence Agency. I wanted him to have all the facts on the Korean situation, so that he could be guided by them — so he wouldn't say anything he didn't mean, as a result of being in the dark about what was going on. For one thing, I didn't want him to make any mistakes in the heat of the campaign that might harm the United States — and the United Nations — in their efforts to defend the free world against Communist aggres- sion. I honestly believed that he would refuse to play politics with our foreign policy — especially that part of it which involves the sacrifice of our American boys in Korea. But I was wrong about that. I was bitterly disappointed a few days ago when the Republican candidate for President told the people of the United States a cruel and deceitful thing. You remember what he said. He said we ought to pull our soldiers out of the fighting in Korea and let the South Korean army fight the Red Chinese hordes alone. That sounded like a promise, and he meant it to sound like a promise. It sounded like something he would do right away. But it was just an empty campaign speech to get votes. I know what his words sounded like to the mothers and fathers of this country. They sounded like words of hope, of relief and comfort from worry and heartache. That's what made them so cruel. The Republican candidate for President held out a false hope to the mothers of America, in an effort to pick up a few votes. That is a most contemptible thing to do. It was irresponsible, because the Republi- can candidate knows that we cannot pull our troops out of Korea now. We can't do it unless we are willing to say to Stalin: "We quit — you win." And we are not going to quit Korea or anywhere else when it comes to resisting Communist aggression. Now, my friends, the Republican candi- date knows as well as I do that for 18 months we have been training South Korean troops day and night. We have been training them to take over more and more of the fighting out there. We have built up and are building a strong Korean army. They are a fine fighting force, as they have proved in the recent battles for White Horse Hill. And we ought to remember that those brave South Koreans are not only fighting for their own freedom from Communist aggression. They are fighting to help pro- tect the freedom over all the world, includ- ing the United States. Now, my friends, the Republican candi- date for President also knows that as long as the Communists are throwing all they can into the fight, the South Koreans cannot stand up against the entire Chinese Red Army. No top military commander in Korea ever believed that they could, and the Gen- eral who is running for President on the Republican ticket doesn't believe it either. He knows better — and when he talks about pulling out of Korea, he is deliberately playing partisan politics with something that ought to be above partisan politics. We are doing everything that can be done to bring the fighting in Korea to an honor- able conclusion. One of your own Rhode Island citizens has 883 [299] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents been working with me to bring that about. You should be very proud of the fine service he has given to our country. He has been our Ambassador to the Republic of Korea, he is now representing our country in the United Nations. His name is John Muccio. We have been trying to end the fighting in Korea on terms which will not encourage aggression somewhere else. No matter what the Republican candidate says, we shall not engage in appeasement. To do that would be to take the sure road to world war III. The one thing I have been working for above everything else is to avoid another world war and to help bring about a secure peace in the world. This fight for peace has many aspects. The United Nations resistance against armed aggression in Korea is one aspect. The fight for peace also includes our pro- gram to build up our own national defense and the aid we are giving to our allies to strengthen them for our common defense. I am sorry to say that the representatives of the Republican Party in Congress have resisted those programs and have voted to cripple them time after time. And while their candidate for President once supported me in my work for peace, he is talking now just exactly like the Old Guard isolationist Republicans talk in Con- gress. There is another aspect of our work for world peace which is very important. That is our effort to develop friendship and understanding between the people of the United States and the freedom-loving people elsewhere in the world. That is more difficult than it should be because we have on our books immigration laws which discriminate against people born in most of the countries of Europe. Our immigration laws are still based on the system of National Origins Quotas, which was first passed during a Republican administration in 1924. That system was set up on the false theory that people born in the countries of south- ern or eastern Europe do not make desir- able citizens in our country. There was never any sense in that. It was based entirely on prejudice. And it makes even less sense in the light of the present- day conditions in the world than it did when it was first passed. Right today, there are many people in southern and eastern Europe who want to come to this country, and who would enrich our national life. But we can't let them in because of the old 1924 law which sets up a standard of national origin, instead of indi- vidual worth. This year I asked the Congress to modify our laws to let some of these people come in. But instead of doing that, they passed a bill which does nothing for this emergency problem in Europe. And they reenacted that old National Origins Quota System. Senator Green and Senator Pastore, and your two Representatives, Aime Forand and John Fogarty, worked side by side with me to get a better immigration law. Now the Republicans in Congress were almost solidly opposed to us. The new law that was passed by the Con- gress is just as unfair to the people of south- ern and eastern Europe as the old one was. I vetoed it, and the Republicans in the Senate voted 4 to 1 to pass it over my veto. Then, in July, both parties held their na- tional conventions. The platform adopted at the Democratic convention pledges our party to work against the unfair and unjust features of the present law. It pledges us to get a decent law in its place. I have already appointed a commission to study the operation of the present law and to report to me before the next Congress. The Democratic Party in- tends to get rid of those provisions in our immigration laws that discriminate against the Italians and the Poles and the Greeks and other people of eastern and southern Europe. But in the Republican platform, my friends, you won't even find the word immi- gration any here; and the Republican candi- date for President has said he's not very 884 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [299] familiar with the subject. And friends, there are a lot of other subjects he is not familiar with, too. And whatever you do, don't forget those Republican votes in the Congress. All in all, it's perfectly clear that you'd have nothing to hope for in the way of a better immigration law from the Republican Party. If you think that law ought to be changed, and made fair and just, you'd better vote for the party that is the party of the people — and that is the Democratic Party. Now, I haven't any doubt about how you people of Rhode Island are going to vote next month. I know that you want to have a national administration that will continue to work for peace and justice in the world and for pros- perity and progress at home. I know you want to vote for the repeal of the Taft-Hartley law, which is penalizing every textile worker in New England. I know you want to have a President in the White House who is for the people, and who is not just a front for special privilege. The way you can get these things is by rolling up the biggest majority in history for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, and the whole Democratic ticket. You have a fine delegation in Congress. I am glad that Rhode Island is going to send Aime Forand and John Fogarty back to the House of Representatives. And as President, Stevenson will need their help. Now a President is in a bad way when he has a balky and contrary Congress. I know, for I am speaking from experience. I had a most balky Congress, which I used to get reelected on; but I don't want Presi- dent Stevenson to start out with that kind of Congress. And you're going to keep John Pastore in the Senate. In the less than 2 years that he has been in Washington, he has voted on more than 300 questions affecting the health, welfare, and security of our Nation. And he has always voted on the side of the people. That's a record of devotion to duty of which he and you can be proud. I am also glad to know that my friend, Dennis Roberts, is going to remain in office for another term. I expect I may come back here to visit you sometime when I get out of a job. I won't be President then, so it will be especially pleasant to have a friend in the Governor's Mansion. I started out my acquaintance with Rhode Island with the Governor of Rhode Island as my friend. He is now the senior U.S. Sen- ator from Rhode Island — Theodore Francis Green. And I have just sent him to the United Nations as one of the representatives of this great Government of ours. Now, as to your great Governor Roberts here, I will have another friend in the man- sion here that I can get a square meal, when I don't have a job. Now, I want to tell you that I think this is one of the most important elections in our whole history. Our future and the fu- ture of the world will be largely shaped by what we do in the next 4 years. We cannot risk turning this country over to the Republican Party, with its long record of obstruction and reaction. We cannot risk having a Republican President who knows nothing about the problems of civilian gov- ernment. That's why you have a duty to yourselves. You yourselves are the Government, if you exercise your power to vote. It is you, by the Constitution of the United States, who con- trol your local, State, and National Govern- ments; and when you don't exercise your franchise, if you get bad government, you have nobody to blame for it but yourselves. Now, the reason I am going up and down the country is not for anything for myself. The Democratic Party has done for me everything that can be done for any one man and I am trying to be grateful by going out and showing the people just exactly what the issues in this campaign are. Then I want them to think. I want them to do their own thinking. I want them, then, after they 55-672—66- -59 885 [299] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents have thought of the matter, after they have studied the records of the Republicans in Congress — and that's all you have to go by, on what the Republicans will do and the record of the Democrats in Congress. You will go to the polls, if you do that, on elec- tion day, and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of the best government in the world. note: The President spoke at 11:35 a-m« from a speaker's platform erected in front of City Hall in Providence, R.I. During his remarks he referred to Governor Dennis J. Roberts, U.S. Ambassador to Korea John Muccio, Senators Theodore Francis Green and John O. Pastore, and Representatives Aime J. Forand and John E. Fogarty, all of Rhode Island. 300 Address at the Eastern Parkway Arena in Brooklyn, New York. October 18, 1952 IT IS always a pleasure for me to come to Brooklyn. My visit to Brooklyn in 1948 was one of the high spots of my campaign and I shall never forget it. I never come to Brooklyn without think- ing of a great American — who used to wind up his State campaigns here — Governor Al- fred E. Smith. I never come to New York without think- ing of the men who have come up in the humanitarian tradition of Al Smith in this State, and the good they have done for the country. I think of Franklin D. Roosevelt. I think of my old colleague in the United States Senate, Bob Wagner. And I think of your great Governor and great Senator, Herbert Lehman. This year the Democrats of New York have selected one of your own distinguished and experienced leaders here in Brooklyn to join Herbert Lehman in the Senate. This Democratic county ought to roll up the big- gest majority in history this year for John Cashmore and the whole ticket. You know, many of the principles of the New Deal and the Fair Deal were first put into effect right here in New York during the twenties. Even when the reactionaries were in full control of the Government in Washington, New York State was a work- ing laboratory for the advancement of those principles. It provided a bright example in the Nation for the benefit of progressive, liberal, humane Democratic government. Many of the battles that later were fought and won on a national scale were first fought and won here in New York. Those were the battles for the people against the power trust, the battles against the sweat- shop working conditions, the battles against child labor and for workmen's compensa- tion. Those battles were won by keeping the power of government out of the hands of the special interests which controlled — and still control — the Republican Party. This is a fight that never ends. The same selfish and reactionary forces are trying again this year to get control of the National Gov- ernment. If they do, they'll start to tear down the great things we have done for the people over the last 20 years — just as they started to do in the 80th Congress. The way to prevent that — the way to go forward for the good of the people — is to elect Adlai Stevenson President and give him a real Democratic Congress. We will have a real Democratic Congress if the rest of the country elects the same kind of Congressmen that you people here in Brooklyn have representing you now. It's an all-star team: Mannie Celler, Abe Multer, John Rooney, Gene Keogh, Louis Heller, Edna Kelly, Donald O'Toole, and James Murphy. Now I sincerely hope that you will re- elect them all — and I know you will. They are the kind of people Adlai Steven- son needs to help him. 886 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 18 [300] Governor Stevenson, I am confident, will become one of our great American Presi- dents. He will go to the White House from a background of experience in government very much like Franklin Roosevelt's. As a highly successful Governor of one of our largest States, he has displayed the same deep understanding of the needs of the ordinary people that Franklin Roosevelt did. In Governor Stevenson and John Spark- man, our party offers the country new, fresh leadership, based on sound and lasting principles. I don't have to tell you that the Republican Party, on the other hand, offers the country very little. That party is being run by the very same people who for a whole generation have been against everything the New Deal and the Fair Deal have done for the people of this country. They have been against fair rules for col- lective bargaining, and in their platform this year they reaffirmed their support of the Taft- Hardey law. They have been against fair prices for farmers, and just this year the ma- jority of the Republicans in the House voted against continuing price supports at their present levels. They have been against social security and just this year the Repub- lican Congressmen voted 2 to 1 against a bill to increase old-age insurance benefits. They have been against rent control, and just this year they voted to kill it. They have been against price control, and just this year the Republican Congressmen voted to take off all price supports. The votes of the Republicans in Congress show how they've been against these things for 20 years, and they haven't changed a bit. Obviously, an organization with these policies is doomed to be a minority party for- ever, in the United States of the 20th cen- tury, unless it can win by deceit — or by fool- ing the people. And this year, those who control the Re- publican destinies are trying harder than ever to deceive the people, in their effort to win a national victory. And that is what I want to talk to you about. Let me say at the outset, I have the deep- est sympathy for those who desire a rebirth of the Republican Party. It would be good for the country. It would be good for the Democratic Party to have some real competi- tion in working for the welfare of the aver- age citizen. A lot of people hoped for such a rebirth this year. They didn't get it. Instead, all they got was a new paint job. The first thing the Republicans did this year was to pull one of the oldest tricks in the political book. That is to take a suc- cessful general — a man whose whole career stands for nonpartisan patriotism — and put him up as a candidate to hide their own bad partisan record. In every case in our history, where this was done, the general turned out to be a figurehead — and usually a pitiful figure- head— for the interests using his name and reputation. Now what has happened in this case? Has this General come forward with a single, new constructive program? Has his leadership done a single thing to change the policies of the Republican Party? Take civil rights for example. Here is an issue on which new leadership might try to bring the Republican Party back to its great — but almost forgotten — tradi- tion of freedom and human rights. But nothing like that has happened. The Re- publican candidate has just uttered crafty equivocations designed to win the votes — and the contributions — of the Dixiecrat mil- lionaires. He is still opposed to using the powers of the Federal Government for an effective fair employment practices law. Take the issue of refugees and displaced persons — the great question of whether we shall amend our immigration and naturali- zation laws in such a way as to aid and strengthen the brave peoples of Europe, and build up our own country. Of course, the Republican platform is 887 [300] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents silent on this issue, but we are entitled to ask: What has the Republican candidate done about it? At this nth hour, he has come out for rewriting the McCarran Act, in words very similar to my veto message of that unfair and un-American law. I am glad he has done so, because I welcome support of every American in the fight to get that law changed. Do you suppose that he would have taken this stand — do you suppose his advisers would even have told him about this issue — if I had not begun the fight, and if I had not carried that fight to the people? How do you think we managed to get this belated "me too" out of the Republican candidate? Now I am being criticized for what I have said about the General on this issue, and as usual my words are being distorted in the press. I have not sought to reflect on the General's military accomplishments in the great fight against the forces of Hitler in Germany. What I have said, and what I shall continue to say, is that the General, as a political candidate, cannot have this issue both ways. He cannot go down to West Virginia or to Indiana or to Wisconsin, and put his arm around men like Revercomb and Jenner and McCarthy, and endorse them for re- election— and to ask the people to send them to Washington to help him in his "great crusade" — and then come back here to New York, and expect the people to believe that he is going to do away with the kind of injustice that is represented by that terrible McCarran law. The apologists for the General say that he has to endorse such people in order to help the unity of the Republican Party. That, my friends, is the only kind of unity it does help. It certainly doesn't help na- tional unity. It certainly doesn't help our unity as a great people of many origins, living up to the principles of our Constitution, and believing in the equality of man. Indeed, as you look at this campaign, you see the Republican candidate, in his efforts to get votes and unify his party, saying the same things as those who have long been trying to pull our country apart. For example, the Republican candidate is saying the same things about economic con- ditions in this country that the Communists are saying. He is asserting that our eco- nomic gains are not real — that they are due to war or to the threat of war. This charge is utterly untrue, of course. In fact, it is the reverse of the truth. If it were not for the necessity of devoting a large part of our production to defense pur- poses, we could produce more civilian goods and raise our standard of living even higher than it is now. The Republican candidate knows this — or he should know it, if he doesn't. But he is making his charges to spread fear of the future and distrust of the Government. And it is for exactly these same reasons that the Communists in this country and in Moscow are making the same charges. Another reckless thing the Republican candidate is doing that will tear our country apart is spreading false and slanderous charges that the Democratic Party is soft on communism. In the face of the record we have made fighting against communism at home and abroad, these charges are fan- tastic. But because he thinks it is a way to get votes he is smearing his Government, and its civilian leaders, for the whole period of his own career under them. These wild political charges about com- munism are no help to our strength and unity — or to our efforts to defeat com- munism. They divide us, setting American against American. You all know that that is true. There are even some Republicans who know it. Two years ago, seven Re- publican Senators joined in a statement de- claring that this technique — if unchecked — and I quote: "will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American way of life." If there is any doubt that this smear technique is a dangerous and destructive way 888 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 18 [300] to get votes, it can be dispelled if we know what the Communists think of it. They do not fear it. They are in favor of it. Listen to the words of a man who spent 9 years in the Communist Party as a volunteer counter- spy for the FBI. His name is Herbert Phil- brick, and he said — and I am going to quote him: "According to leaders of the Communist Party, McCarthy has helped them a great deal. The kind of attacks he has made do three things that his comrades like: They add greatly to the confusion, putting up a smokescreen for the party and making it more difficult than ever for people to discern just who is a Communist and who is not; they make the party appear a lot stronger than it is; and they do considerable damage to some of the 'stupid liberals' whom the party hates." There you have it. McCarthyism does not hurt the Communists — it helps them. Its purpose, like theirs, is to divide and confuse the Nation. But it is one of the weapons that the Republican Party, under its new leadership, is using in its drive for votes in November. Now there is another field in which the Republican candidate has adopted tactics that divide and injure the Nation. That, my friends, is our struggle for peace in Korea. As I explained in Lawrence, Massachusetts, yesterday, the Republican candidate is leading people to think that he can pull all our troops out of Korea. Now, the General is a professional soldier. I have arranged for him to receive, during this campaign, top secret reports on the fight- ing in Korea. He knows what the situation is there. He knows that if we pulled out of Korea it would mean a complete victory for the Communists, and would wreck our whole defense against Communist aggression in the Far East. Yet he has been going around this coun- try implying that he has some easy patented solution. This is simply playing a cheap and cruel hoax on the mothers and wives of our men in Korea, and I have called him on it — I hope he stops it. Because it's not only a shameless cruelty for our women, and an injury to our morale, but it's also just what the Communists want. Now, I made General Eisenhower Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I appointed him commander of NATO in Europe of our allies who are getting them- selves strong enough to resist communism. He has been on my military advisers staff ever since I have been President of the United States, and if he knows any sure, quick way to wind up the Korean situation, he should have told me and not used it for a political purpose. It would be much, much easier, if he knows a quick way to end this situation, than to save it — he is using it for political purposes, to get himself into office so he can stop it. He can't do it, and it's simply a political trick. The Communists have been saying all along that we ought to get out of Korea and stay out of Korea. They have been doing everything possible to get the people of this country to think that Korea is a useless sacrifice. Their purpose is to get us out of the fight so they can take over Korea. And they have certainly been greatly helped by what the Republican candidate has been say- ing around the country in recent days. Now, when I think of all these things, I challenge any Republican, or any Republi- can newspaper (and that includes most of them) to stand up and say that the Republi- can Party and the Republican candidate have waged a high-level campaign — or even ever intended to wage a high-level campaign. They haven't done it. Theirs is one of the lowest, gutter campaigns that I have ever seen. And if there had been an ordinary politician at the head of it, instead of a gen- eral of the Army, the Republicans would never have dared to put it on. Now, I have pointed out that this gutter campaign follows the line of the Communists in several respects. This is not because the Republican Party and the Republican candi- 889 [300] Oct. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents date believe in communism, or that they are sympathetic with it. It is quite the opposite. It is because the propaganda of the extreme reactionaries, and of the lunatic fringe on the right — the lunatic fringe that the candi- date wants to keep in his unified Republican Party — includes the same elements of disrup- tion and distrust as the propaganda of the Communists. Now, if the Republicans stoop to this kind of propaganda, we have a right to call it what it really is. Communism and the lunatic fringe of ex- treme reaction tell the people the same lies — because they have the same aim — to weaken and confuse and divide the people as a means of achieving power. In the sad and tortured history of our times, we have seen many bitter examples of this political technique. Dictatorships have risen to power in foreign lands on the basis of it. At the bottom of these movements are the appeals to prejudice and panic. At the top is the figure of a leader, usually in uniform or with a military background. All the followers are required to have a deep personal faith in the leader, to believe that he will do miracles, if he comes to power. He answers no questions — he is above questioning. He will change everything that is wrong, but it is blasphemous to ask him how he is going to do it. Now, I don't for a moment suggest that the Republican candidate wants to be a dictator — or that the Republican Party is planning to set up a dictatorship. But the public relations experts and the advertising agencies who are masterminding the Re- publican campaign have introduced these foreign techniques to sell their political product. And what I am saying is, that these foreign techniques have no place in American political life. We do not want a man on horseback. When a man gets into politics, he has to get off his high horse. With us, a candidate is supposed to take a stand on the issues, and tell us where he stands. Anybody is en- titled to question his views. Our political life is colorful and exciting — and nobody knows that better than I do — but it is based on reason and debate and considered judgment. And we want to keep it that way. So don't be pressured — don't be fooled — don't be divided by fear or panic. The people run this country. And the people can trust one another as they always have. Think over the issues. Pray over your decision. Decide on the basis of reason and judgment. I hope you will vote Demo- cratic— and I believe you will, because the Democratic Party stands on what it has done — and is honest with the people about the issues before us. The Democratic Party has always been the party of the people. The Democratic Party has always had a heart. The Republican Party has been for the special interests, and not for the people. The Republican Party has a calculating ma- chine for a heart. I want you to think these things over. Think them carefully, now. Vote in your own interests. If you think them carefully, and think of your own interests, and think of the wel- fare of this great Nation of ours — the greatest Republic in the history of the world — and think of the welfare of the free world as a whole, you can't do anything else but vote the Democratic ticket. And if you do that, Adlai Stevenson will be the Presi- dent of the United States for the next 4 years. note: The President spoke at 9:30 p.m. in the Eastern Parkway Arena, Brooklyn, N.Y. During his remarks he referred to, among others, Robert F. Wagner, Sr., former United States Senator, Sen- ator Herbert H. Lehman, former Governor, John Cashmore, Democratic candidate for Senator, Repre- sentatives Emanuel Celler, Abraham J. Multer, John J. Rooney, Eugene J. Keogh, Louis B. Heller, Edna F. Kelly, Donald L. O'Toole, and James J. Murphy, all of New York, William C. Revercomb, Senator from West Virginia, 1943-49, and Senators William E. Jenner of Indiana and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin. 890 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 20 [301] 301 Statement by the President on the Republican Position on Immigration. October 20, 1952 CERTAIN Republican leaders have been deliberately distorting my statement of Octo- ber 17 concerning the position of the Repub- lican Party and the position of most of its representatives in Congress on our immi- gration laws. Perhaps what is needed now is a calm clarification of the situation. Now, what does the record show; what precisely did I say last Friday? I repeat the exact words I used: "Among those who voted for the McCar- ran bill and to override my veto, was the Re- publican candidate for Vice President. "Among the other Republicans were Sen- ators Jenner and McCarthy. Together with ex-Senator Revercomb, the champion of the anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish provisions of the original DP bill, these men have been em- braced by the Republican candidate for President. "The Republican candidate for the Presidency cannot escape responsibility for his endorsements. He has had an attack of moral blindness, for today, he is willing to accept the very practices that identified the so-called 'master race' although he took a leading part in liberating Europe from their domination." I do not withdraw a word of that state- ment. But the Republicans and a few others whom they were able to persuade to help them, chose to distort the simple mean- ing of my words as a charge that the Re- publican presidential candidate is anti- Catholic and anti-Jewish. I said no such thing, and indeed meant no such thing; and any fair person who reads what in fact I did say, must be as shocked as I am by the ab- surdities in the press of the last few days. Certainly, people remember that I have made clear that Senator McCarran, the prin- cipal sponsor of discriminatory immigration legislation, "is not my kind of Democrat." Contrast that with the Republican candi- date's willingness and hearty endorsement of Senators Jenner, McCarthy, and Revercomb. The first two, along with Senator Nixon and most Republicans, voted to override any veto of the McCarran bill, which is recog- nized everywhere as discriminatory. Sen- ator Revercomb, it will not be forgotten, championed the notorious anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish provisions of the original dis- placed persons bill. This is what I said, and these are the facts which nobody has yet denied. What all of this furor adds up to is that the Republicans in their eagerness to get votes are trying to find in my statement of fact something that is not there. I cannot tolerate this. If the Republican candidate sees fit to endorse such well-known sup- porters of discriminatory legislation, if he is willing to campaign on a platform that is utterly silent on the subject of amending that legislation, and if he wants people to take seriously his belated acknowledgment, just the other day, that the McCarran Act needs radical amendments, he must then explain to the public whether he accepts the prac- tices of the men he supports or whether, by some political disclaimer, he disassociates himself from their practices. The practices of those Senators — the practices of the big lie and of character assassination — are identified with the so-called "master race" theory and no amount of distortion can change that fact. I know that the Republican candidate for President is neither anti-Jewish nor anti- Catholic, but why does he give his endorse- ment to such men? That is what I condemned last Friday and this is what I condemn today. note: See also Item 297. 891 [302] Oct. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents 302 Statement by the President Concerning the Import Quota on Shelled Filberts. October 20, 1952 ON SEPTEMBER 25 I received from the Tariff Commission a report and recommen- dation with respect to additional fees on im- ports of almonds and an import quota on shelled filberts. I accepted the recommen- dation with respect to almonds and issued a proclamation in time for it to be effective on October i. The matter of filberts was left for further consideration. Since that time I have found no need for the imposition of a quota limitation on im- ports of shelled filberts, and I therefore am taking no action to impose new restrictions on imports of filberts for the coming crop year. My decision is based on several facts. One of these is that American growers seem assured of a return from their in-shell sales alone, in excess of their returns from their entire crop last year. I can find no justifica- tion for the belief expressed in the report that there is or is likely to be so severe a threat to American filberts as to warrant the imposition of an import quota. Restrictive action with regard to filberts would fall almost entirely upon Turkey and would reduce its annual dollar earnings by over $il/i million. This would be on top of a loss of dollar earnings already incurred by reason of an increased tariff on dried figs. Imposition of the recommended quota would seriously interfere with the emergency ef- forts to combat the serious Turkish financial crisis. note: The Commission's report is included in Tariff Commission Report No. 183, Second Series, entitled "Edible Tree Nuts: Reports to the President" and published by the Government Printing Office (1953, 70 PP.)- On September 27 the President signed Proclama- tion 2991 "Imposing Import Fees on Shelled and Prepared Almonds" (3 CFR, 1 949-1 953 Comp., p. 168). 303 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. October 21, 1952 [1.] Wilmington, Delaware (Rear plat- form, 7:32 a.m.) I certainly do appreciate the fact that you are willing to get up so early in the morning. The thing that pleases me most is that we have succeeded in getting these reporters and photographers up so early. They don't like to get up at all. I always enjoy coming to this town. I have been here on many an occasion. While I was in the Senate I used to come to Wil- mington for the purpose of making some investigations. Now, after listening to some of the propaganda the Republicans put out, I was a little worried about what I might find here, but I am glad to see that your industries as well as your people are apparently doing very well under our system of free enterprise and a Democratic administration. I am making these trips around the coun- try because I think it is very important to our country that we elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States. I know you will vote for him, and for Senator Sparkman, on the 4th of November. In that way you can make sure you will continue to have a Government that works for the welfare of the people, even including the Republicans. You have some exceptionally well-quali- fied candidates on the Democratic ticket in Delaware. Governor Carvel is recognized everywhere as one of the most progressive and promising young men in the Democratic Party. He has done a great deal to improve the schools, roads, and other institutions of this State. 892 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 21 [303] And I am glad to see another wonderful young Democrat coming to the front in Alex Bayard. He evidently has some very courteous friends here. He and Adlai Stevenson are working for the good of the country, just as their grandfathers worked together in the administration of Grover Cleveland. Alex Bayard's grandfather was Secretary of State in Cleveland's first ad- ministration, and he was Ambassador to Great Britain during the second Cleveland administration when Governor Stevenson's grandfather was Vice President. You will have a good team with Governor Stevenson in the White House, Alex Bayard in the Senate, and another good Democrat in the House of Representatives — Joseph Scannell. Joseph Scannell and Alex Bayard are both young and progressive. They are both combat veterans, and when you send them to Washington, they will still be on the firing line, and they will still be fighting for you, the people. The most important task of the new ad- ministration in Washington will be to con- tinue to work to bring about world peace, and to avoid another world war. The Democratic Party is working for peace through international cooperation. And neither our party nor our candidates are mis- led or confused by the false doctrine of isola- tionism with which the Republican Party is afflicted. They have been suffering from that for a long time. We believe in working with the other free governments to strengthen the United Na- tions, and make it an effective instrument against aggression. That course holds our best hope for achieving a just and lasting peace in the world. If the Republican isolationists ever got in the saddle and started cutting down on our programs of international cooperation, we will be on the road to disaster. That is why it is so necessary this year to elect a Presi- dent and a party that really believes in help- ing to create a strong world barrier against Communist aggression. All I am out here for is, as I told you to begin with, to try to get you to think. Just think, then, in your own interest. Look at the situation. Find out exactly what the issues are. Find out where the Democrats stood in the Congress, and then find out where the Republicans stood in the Con- gress— and that's all you can go by. You can't go by what the politicians tell you from the platform — except from the President himself, he tells you the truth. Study these things. Study these things, and then you can't do but one thing. You will just vote your own interest. You will vote for the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and you will vote for the free world's continuance in its opposi- tion to communism. If you do that, you will send Adlai Steven- son to the White House, and you will re- elect the Democratic ticket here in Dela- ware— and continue another 4 years of good government. [2.] Jersey City, New Jersey (City Hall, 11 a.m.) Mr. Mayor, I can't tell you how very happy I am to be back once again in Jersey City. This is a place where no good Democrat need feel lonesome. The last time I was here, if you remember, I was trying to keep my job. Some people didn't think I would make it. And some of them are not over that licking yet! This time I am fighting just as hard for another man, because I know that America needs a President who believes in the great Democratic principles we have always fought for. And we are going to elect that kind of a man as President on November 4th — Adlai Stevenson. I am glad to pay tribute to the brilliant son of one of New Jersey's most distinguished families — your candidate for the Senate, Archie Alexander. As Under Secretary of the Army he bore a heavy responsibility for arming our allies and our troops in Korea. In that job he worked tirelessly to create a bulwark of strength against Soviet imperial- 55-672^G6— 60 893 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents ism. And he succeeded. President Steven- son will need him in the Senate, and I know you are going to send him there. Ed Hart, the Representative of your 14th Congressional District, has for 18 years fought the battle of the Democratic Party for the welfare of all the people. As head of the Democratic delegation from New Jersey, he is a captain on our team. Let's keep him on the job; you don't know how badly we need him. Al Sieminski, representing your 13th Con- gressional District, is a young man who knows the menace of Communist aggression at first hand. He emerged from active serv- ice in Korea with a keen awareness of the Communist threat and a great devotion to the task of preserving our freedom. His vot- ing record shows it. Return Al Sieminski to Congress on November the 4th, along with all the rest of the Democrats on that delega- tion. I want to say to you again, that I am glad to be here with a fighting New Jersey Demo- crat from the old school. I refer of course to your great mayor and leader — John V. Kenny. I am also most happy to see my former colleague from the Senate, and former Governor of the great State of New Jersey, Harry Moore, on the stand this morning with me. Now, my friends, in the course of 40 years of political life, from precinct to President, I recall some tough batdes for the Democratic Party — some we won — some we lost. I re- call, for example, that in the election of 1928 some who like to call themselves Democrats were impersonating the little man who wasn't there. But John V. Kenny was there, I was there, Adlai Stevenson was there. And thousands of you who were old enough to vote were there — fighting for the election of that great Democrat and great American, Alfred E. Smith. Now, my friends, I don't know how the Republican candidate for President felt about the 1928 election. He says he never voted until 1948, at the tender age of 58 years. That is a pretty late start in politics. I started keeping score more than 45 years ago, so I have been in politics all my life, practically. At any rate, it is hard to believe that the General would understand a man of the common people, like Alfred E. Smith — al- though I am sure that Al Smith would un- derstand the General very well. The Republican candidate for President advises party workers to appeal to emotion rather than to reason. He tells them to look for inspiration, not to a man like Al Smith, but rather to another general — Oliver Crom- well, in whose religious wars he says he finds a model for injecting spirit and enthusiasm into his own campaign. The General certainly has a lot to learn about civil government, which is a construc- tive rather than a destructive art. The General should learn that it is possible to create spirit and enthusiasm among people by being for things — as well as by being against them — by being for such things as better housing, better schools, better health conditions, better job opportunities, and greater security and welfare for all the people. It is doubtful, however, whether he can ever learn this lesson from his current set of professors — who are against everything, in- cluding themselves. For the past 20 years the Democratic administrations in Washington have fought the battle of the common man, and we don't intend to stop now. You need only look around you, in your own State and through- out the Nation, to find ample proof that our investment in America has paid of?, in terms of a higher standard of living and a greater well-being for all the people. Great advances have been made and are being made today under progressive Democratic leadership — advances which improve housing, schools, roads, health facilities, and expand industrial development and job opportunities. The Democratic Party has been the vehicle of the average man in his quest for a better life, and I hope and trust that we will never see the day when it abandons that role. I don't think we ever will. The Republicans, on the other hand, have 894 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 21 [303] been against the things the New Deal and the Fair Deal have done for the people. They would like to forget it in election years, but they can't run away from their voting record in the Congress. That record shows how they have been against low-cost public housing — against effective rent controls and price controls designed to hold down the cost of living. They have a long record of voting to obstruct and cripple the social security program. They say they are in favor of it now, but their record is against them. Just this year, they have opposed our efforts to make it possible to grant a haven and a refuge here to more of our friends who have escaped from the Soviet communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia and other unfortunate nations behind the Iron Curtain. In short, they have con- sistently been against New Deal and Fair Deal measures designed to help the little fellow, as opposed to the rich and the powerful. But most of all, in this election year, the Republicans are against the Democrats. The Republican high command has become so blind and so desperate that it has gone all out in spreading the outrageous false- hood that your President and your Govern- ment in Washington are soft toward com- munism. They have used every propa- ganda technique and huge sums of money to try to put this big lie over on the American people. In the face of everything my administra- tion has done to build up our defenses against communism here and abroad, the Republican charge would be funny if the matter were not so serious. Trying to make our hatred of communism a weapon of partisan politics is a good way to tear the country apart. While the Republican candidate for Presi- dent and his new friends have been busy trying to sow false seeds of suspicion, your Government has been steadily going forward with concrete measures to fight communism at home and abroad. Many of these meas- ures I cannot even mention for security rea- sons. Others are a matter of public record, but you probably haven't read about them in the opposition press. I am glad to add that your own Jersey Journal and Observer is one paper that is not afraid to print the truth. A simple listing of some of the measures that have been taken — some of those which can be mentioned publicly — may shed some light on just how soft the Democrats are toward communism. We now have the finest intelligence serv- ices in our history, both at home and abroad. We created the Central Intelligence Agency and vasdy strengthened the FBI. We have established a highly effective in- dustrial security program. We have established a thoroughgoing and effective port security program. We have established Government-wide standards to protect secret information. We have created the Psychological Strategy Board. We have established the Federal employee loyalty and security programs, which put Government servants through more careful examination than any other group in the Nation. All these things and more have been done under my administration. In recent months, as you know, acting under a law passed by a Democratic Congress under President Roosevelt — and based upon 10 years of painstaking investigation by the FBI — we have been indicting and convicting the Communist conspirators and putting them where they belong — in jail. Now, my friends, I ask you a plain, simple, straightforward question: Does that sound soft on communism? In the international field, we have built defenses against Communist aggression all around the world. Let me just remind you of how we stopped Communist aggression in Greece and Turkey. Let me remind you of how we have blocked Communist ex- pansion through the Marshall plan, the point 4 program, the North Adantic Treaty, and the mutual security program. And re- 895 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents member, too, how the chips were down in Korea on June 25, 1950. There was a real test of softness or toughness toward com- munism. I am proud that under American leadership the free nations of the world, within 24 hours, moved in courageously to challenge Soviet aggression. That record may paint a picture of soft- ness toward communism in the minds of demagogues, intent on grasping political power. But it is time even for them to come to their senses, because the poison they peddle is dangerous to the security of the Republic they profess to revere. There is nothing more subversive of our form of government than the Communist, Fascist, antireligious doctrine that the end justifies the means. Make no mistake about it, the Com- munists would be delighted with the defeat of the Democratic Party in November, be- cause communism thrives on reaction and depression and social problems. Only the other day, the Government of India caught Communist leaders in that country in a crude plot to discredit our American Am- bassador, with a view to influencing our na- tional election. And don't think the Com- munists didn't try to defeat me in 1948. They did everything they could to dupe Democratic and Independent voters into sup- porting the Progressive Party ticket — not be- cause they were foolish enough to think that ticket could win, but because they hoped to capture enough votes to ensure a Republican victory. It is a cruel and brazen hoax on the American people to try to tear down their confidence in their Government by means of distortion and lies. Moreover, it is a dan- gerous hoax. Those who are trafficking in panic and hysteria in order to get votes may well have cause to regret it more if they succeed than if they fail. I am proud to say that the Democratic candidate for President is conducting his campaign in a manner that shows greater respect for American institutions and for common honesty. He is talking sense to the American people. He respects their intelligence. He addresses himself to their reason and not to their emotion. And I want to say to you the reason I am going around the country giving the people the facts and the issues in this campaign is because that is the only way you can get them. I want you to understand exactly what the fight is about. I want you to understand the issues in this campaign, and study them. I am not asking you to stultify yourselves. I want you to vote from your own knowledge. Vote for your own interests. Vote for the welfare of this great Nation, and vote for the welfare of the free world. If you do that, we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House for the next 4 years, and we will have good government for this great Republic. [3.] Newark, New Jersey (City Hall, 12:27 p.m.) Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests: I am overwhelmed at this magnificent turnout. I did not anticipate it at this time of the day, and I am highly appreciative. You people have done me a very great honor, and I thank you very much for it. I am out here today campaigning for the Democratic ticket. This year the Democratic Party has two of the finest candidates in its entire history — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. You have a great candidate for the Senate in Archie Alexander. And I want you to return your good Democratic Congressmen, Peter Rodino and Hugh Addonizio. Elect Martin S. Fox to Congress. They will help Stevenson and Sparkman do the job you want — to carry forward the great programs of economic and social welfare that have been initiated during the last 20 years. In this campaign the Democrats have been explaining these issues to the people. We have been trying to get the Republicans to take a stand and tell us where they stand en the issues, too. I have been trying to smoke 896 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 21 [303] out the Republican candidate on some of these things that are of such concern to the people. At last we are getting some results. Last week when the Republican candidate for President spoke here, he discussed one of these issues — the issue of civil rights. I am glad to see the Republican candidate is in favor of the principles of civil rights. But he obviously does not know the hard facts of life about the subject at all. He doesn't know what it takes to get something done in this field. He thinks he will call a conference of Governors to fix things. But I can tell you, it will take more than that to break down the barriers of prejudice. A good deal of his speech was devoted to attacking me for not doing enough about civil rights. Now, can you beat that? In my political life I have been attacked for many things. I have had a good laugh over many of them. But I have never had a better laugh than the one I had from the Republican candidate, that I was not doing enough about civil rights. People usually tell me I've done too much. The more you think about it, the funnier it is. Now the Republican candidate made a particular point about segregation in the District of Columbia. He promises to end it // he becomes President. I'm glad to see the Republican candidate is interested in this subject. But I ought to warn him that the President can't get things done in the District of Columbia by simply waving a wand. I have been for home rule for the District for years, but I can't get the Congress to agree. Nevertheless, we are making a lot of progress in civil rights in the District of Columbia. Today, in the theaters, the hotels, and restaurants of the District of Columbia, seg- regation and discrimination are on the way out. In the colleges and universities of the Dis- trict, in the private schools, both secondary and elementary, hundreds of Negro stu- dents are enrolled where there were none 5 years ago. The parks and playgrounds operated by the Interior Department in Washington are completely unsegregated, as they have been for more than 10 years. The parks and playgrounds operated by the District of Columbia in Washington are being progressively integrated. Only last month integration of some of our new housing projects was announced. Just this year the Medical Association of the District of Columbia opened its member- ship to qualified Negro physicians. Other professional groups have done the same thing. My friends, some of these are big steps. They are all steps forward, not backward; and they represent action, not talk. I understand there are some Republicans who believe in civil rights. I understand you have one of them as Governor of New Jersey. But that is no reason for you to elect, as President, a Republican who thinks it is impossible to use Federal power to insure fair employment practices. That is no rea- son to elect a Republican candidate who says that a certain amount of segregation is neces- sary in the Armed Forces, because under in- tegration the competition is too tough for Negroes. And that's what the Republican candidate for President says. Why put a man in the White House who only wants to call a conference, when you can put in Adlai Stevenson, who moved in with the National Guard to stop the Cicero riots, who abolished segregation in the Illi- nois National Guard by executive order, who eliminated race from the Illinois State Employment Service forms, and who helped to end segregation in the Illinois public schools ? That is Adlai Stevenson. Don't be fooled. Look at both candidates. Look at both records. Look at their plat- forms. You want to make up your mind. Look at the Congress' record of both parties, and that record is made in the Congress. Study 897 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents the records of the Republicans in the Con- gress and the records of the Democrats in Congress. Read the Democratic platform at the Chicago convention. Read the Re- publican platform at the Chicago convention. You can't help but make up your mind one way, and that is the way to go to the polls on November the 4th and send Adlai Steven- son to the White House for the next 4 years, and we will have good government, and your interests will be protected. [4.] Elizabeth, New Jersey (City Hall, 1:12 p.m.) I am certainly glad to be back once more in Elizabeth. I like this place. Every time I have been here, I have had one of the most cordial welcomes a man could anticipate or expect. I remember with pleasure the generous hospitality of Mayor Kirk here, during my visit in 1948. Elizabeth has prospered under his progressive leadership, and I am confident you will reelect him on November the 4th. And I want you to send H. Frank Pettit to Washington to represent your 6th Con- gressional District. A liberal, able lawyer, a veteran, and a man experienced in the prob- lems of government, he will make an out- standing contribution to the 83d Congress. Your candidate for the Senate, Archie Alexander, served me and all of us with high distinction as a great Under Secretary of the Army. He put through some efficiency pro- grams that saved the taxpayers billions of dollars. Archie Alexander will be a credit to the Senate, so make sure that he gets there when you vote on November the 4th. Now the Democrats have never presented a better ticket nationally than they have this time, when the convention at Chicago made its nominations. Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman are two of the best men that ever have been before the country for election. Governor Stevenson is rapidly becoming known as the man who put the "candid" in candidate. The Republican candidate for President, who recently visited New Jersey, seems to be aspiring to the tide of the man who put the word "promise" in compromise. He ap- parently is willing to compromise with any- one in exchange for a promise of votes, and that has brought about some startling results. In New Jersey he praised his friend and benefactor General Marshall, but in Wiscon- sin he deleted any reference to General Mar- shall from his speech. In New Jersey he denounced the bureaucrats in Washington, but in Silver Spring, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, he promised Government em- ployees job security if elected. In New Jersey he proposed abolition of segregation in the District of Columbia, but in Washington he didn't happen to think to mention it. In New Jersey he denounced the McCarran Act, with its unfair discrimination against the Poles, the Italians, and other nationality groups. But in Indiana and Wisconsin, and other States, he embraced its enthusiastic supporters. Now, there are many more examples, but the one which should clinch the title is the bargain of Mornings ide Heights. There the General bought the support of Senator Taft, in exchange for swallowing the Old Guard isolationist Republican foreign policy and the mossback Taft domestic policy, including the good-for-nothing antilabor act passed by that 80th Congress — the Taft-Hartley law. The Republican convention endorsed that act. If the General's strategy is successful, then the American people are a lot easier to fool than I think they are. The General should take a tip from a truly great Republican, and a man of principle — Abraham Lincoln. He just can't hope to fool all of the people all of the time. They are too smart. Your city, your State, and your Nation have made great strides under the 20 years of Democratic administration. Our standard of living is higher, we have more purchasing power, more and better jobs, homes, cars, hospitals, schools — and a better life for all our people. 898 Harry S. Truman, J952 Oct. 21 [303] When you weigh all those things and look over the situation as it affects you individ- ually, I want you to do a litde thinking. I am going around over the country, calling the attention of the people to the platforms and the thinking of the Republican Party, and urging the people to use their brains. You ought to do a little thinking. Think a litde bit in your own interest. You ought to remember that in the last 20 years your condition in life has been gradually im- proving all the time. Your standard of liv- ing has been going up. The Republicans have not offered you anything to maintain that situation. Now, I want you to think of your own interests. I want you to think about the wel- fare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. I want you to think about the welfare of the free world. If you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will vote the Democratic ticket, and the country will have Adlai Stevenson for President the next 4 years — and we will have good government during that period. [5.] New Brunswick, New Jersey (Court- house, 2:06p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this turnout. I was told on the way over here that this is one of New Jersey's two Democratic strong- holds— and it certainly looks like it. This city and Middlesex County have been strong- holds for 20 years. Under the able leader- ship of my friend Dave Wilentz, we aim to keep it that way. I am confident that you will send John Zimmermann to the Congress and Archie Alexander to the Senate on November the 4th. Rutgers University here in New Bruns- wick is one of our oldest and finest educa- tional institutions. Since colonial days, it has represented the freedom of thought and ideas that has made our power and pros- perity possible. In this campaign the Republican Party is encouraging the use of the big lie and slander technique. This technique is a threat not only to the reputation of innocent persons, but also a danger to freedom of thought and expression. We see this danger in the attempt by the Republican smear artists to make the New Deal and the Fair Deal seem as if it were something alien and subversive. We see in it the Republican practice of answering criticism by yelling Communist smear. We see in it the attempt to intimi- date Government workers through irrespon- sible and reckless attacks on their loyalty and their reputation. If these practices are kept up, a lot of people are going to become afraid to express their own views or to express their opposi- tion to powerful men. This danger to free speech is already being felt. If the Republican candidate is really de- voted to the ideals of freedom, he ought to come out against those things. He ought to tell his running mate to stop his slander mill. But no, he is willing to let this sort of thing go on, and to benefit from it in his drive for votes. In fact, the Republican leaders seem to have a tendency to run out on their friends when they are unjustly attacked by these slandermongers. The Republican candi- date for President failed to defend his great benefactor, George Marshall, against the fantastic lies of Jenner and McCarthy. And the Republican Senator in this State, who is running for office again, ran out on his friend, Ambassador Philip Jessup. When Jessup was attacked, Senator Smith knew the attack was without foundation, but he refused to defend him once the slanderers in the Senate had gone after him. It was a sad exhibition of lack of backbone. We can't expect the Republican Party or the Republican leaders to defend freedom of thought and expression. The records show that they just won't do it. If you believe in the right of men to say what they believe, and to be free from the slanderous attacks, you had better vote for Adlai Stevenson and the Democratic 899 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Party. Adlai Stevenson talks sense to the American people. He expresses exactly what he believes. He makes the same state- ments of policy in Virginia that he makes in New Jersey. He makes the same state- ments of policy and what he believes in New York State as he does in California. He doesn't have a statement for every State and 48 different policies to present to the American people. You know where he stands. I see that you don't know where the Re- publican candidate stands. On November 4th you are going to vote the Democratic ticket, and this Government will be safe for another 4 years. [6.] Trenton, New Jersey (War Me- morial Building, 3:20 p.m.) I appreciate very much this wonderful welcome. I don't know whether you know it or not, but I am not running for office this year. But I am working just as hard as I can for the Democratic ticket. I want to show my appreciation for what they have done for me. I have had every honor a man can have at the hands of the Democratic Party. I am not like a lot of fellows, I don't get high hat and join another party after I've gotten all I want out of a party that has been good to me. I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party. I believe that the Democratic Party is the party of the people — and I am going to be one of the people, as I am going to show you after the 20th of January. I believe also that this is one of the most important, if not the most important, elec- tion since the Civil War. There are many things at stake. You know, I am going up and down this country trying to get the facts before the people, trying to get them to think. And if you will think, you can't do but one thing, and that is to send Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman to Washing- ton on the 4th of November. All you have to do is to listen to Governor Stevenson's speeches. He is really talking sense to the American people — as he said he would. The Republicans say he is talking over your heads. But that just goes to show how litde respect they have for the intelligence of the American people. John Sparkman has spent his whole life in public service, working for the interests of the ordinary man and woman. Stevenson and Sparkman are going to be a team in Washington that will be a credit to the country. But they are going to need help from the best kind of Congress you can send them. I know you people here in Trenton are going to give them that help by electing Archie Alexander to the Senate, and by sending Charlie Howell back to the House of Representatives for another term. Now I have had a great deal of experience in Washington. I spent 10 years in the Senate. I will have been almost 8 years in the White House when the 20th of January rolls around. I have had all sorts of ex- perience with Congresses of different kinds, and I want to say to you that it isn't very pleasant for a President to have a program to put over and to be balked and frustrated by a Congress that doesn't believe in what he is trying to do. That is the reason I want you to send these good men from New Jersey to Congress, to support the new President when he comes in. Back in the spring, before the national conventions, I remember there was quite a stir around here, when your Governor an- nounced that he was for the General and against Senator Taft. A lot of the Taft people hollered pretty loud about that. They said they were doublecrossed. But since then things have been happening so thick and fast in the Republican camp that it is getting harder and harder to figure out who doublecrossed whom. Did Governor Driscoll doublecross Sena- tor Taft when he helped get the General nominated at Chicago? Or did the General doublecross Governor 900 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 21 [303] Driscoll, when he swallowed all of Taft's ideas for breakfast up in New York a few weeks ago? Anyway, it begins to look like all that fuss among the Republicans here in New Jersey was all about nothing. That's the way it always is with the Republicans. Whoever they put up front to try and distract people's attention, they remain the same old party with the same old ideas. The General has been up here in New Jersey with the Governor, and in New York with Governor Dewey, and he has been talk- ing like a liberal Republican. He has re- cently been very concerned about social security and civil rights, and fair immigra- tion laws. But when he was out in Ohio and Indiana he was talking like a reactionary isolationist Republican. And in the South he talked exactly like a Dixiecrat. I just wonder if he and Jimmy Byrnes discussed civil rights when they had lunch together in South Carolina? I'll make you a bet they did not discuss it. A lot of Republicans are trying to excuse the General by saying all this is just cam- paign talk to get him elected. Wait till he is in the White House, they say, and then you will see the real Eisenhower. I don't think the American people want to wait until January 20th to find out what their next President is really like. I don't think you are willing to sign that kind of blank check. I think you want to know, and you have a right to know, now, in advance, just where he stands on the issues. You don't have any difficulty finding out where Governor Stevenson stands. He has been telling you in some of the finest cam- paign speeches I have ever heard. He stands squarely for the policies that have made our country strong and prosperous over the last 20 years. And he is going to keep it that way. Now, the only reason I am going up and down the country — as I told you in the first place — is to show my gratitude to the Demo- cratic Party for what they have done for me. But the principal reason is that I want to put the facts before the people and let them do a litde thinking for themselves. I don't think Governor Stevenson is talk- ing over your heads. I think he is telling you just exactly what you want to hear about what the issues are in this campaign. You can't find out what the issues are when you listen to the Republicans talk, because they are on all sides of every question — 48 differ- ent things they will tell you in 48 different States. Then they hope that they can fool enough of you not to put these things to- gether so that you will elect them. And then what will happen to you? My advice to you is to use your own head. Think this thing through. Find out what is best for the country, what is best for the world, what is best for yourselves. If you will do that, I have every confidence that Adlai Stevenson will be the next President for the next 4 years, and we will have good government, and the world will be safe. Thank you very much. [7.] Camden, New Jersey (Roosevelt Plaza, 4:55 p.m.) I appreciate most highly that wonderful welcome. I remember very well 4 years ago a welcome similar to this. I don't think there were quite as many here, but they were quite as enthusiastic, and that did a lot of good. I have been out trying to tell just as many people as I can the facts about the election. Once the facts are known, I have no doubt about the outcome. We will have another Democratic victory. The Democrats have given you candidates for President and Vice President that you can count on to preserve the gains we have made, and to keep moving forward — instead of trying to turn the clock back. I hope you have been listening to Gov- ernor Stevenson's speeches. He has been telling the American people just where he stands on the great issues, without any ifs, ands, or buts. If you analyze these speeches, 901 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents you will find that Governor Stevenson un- derstands the policies that have made us strong and prosperous; and he will see to it that we stay that way. John Sparkman is a perfect partner for Governor Stevenson. His long experience in the Senate has been devoted to the inter- ests of all the people. You people in New Jersey are fortunate in having a man like Archie Alexander to vote for, for Senator. He is the kind of man who can be counted on to work for your in- terests in the Senate. I hope you will send Alfred Pierce to Congress as your Repre- sentative from Camden. I am sure you will do that. You know, no matter how hard the Re- publican campaign orators, and the Repub- lican candidate, try to hide it, there is just no getting away from the fact that this country is more prosperous than it has ever been in history. Back in Washington last Sunday, I had a chance to look at some of our hometown papers. Here is what one of those Washing- ton papers that supports the Republicans on the front page has to say on the inside page. "The very rich," says this paper, "have grown poorer, compared to the high incomes they enjoyed 25 to 30 years ago, but the well- to-do have become more numerous. The very poor have become fewer, and the poor have become much better off than ever be- fore." Now that is the Washington Post, Sunday, October 19, section B, page 2. The article concludes, "// a further leveling-up process can be maintained, another depres- sion like that of the logo's may no longer be in the mill." I want you to note carefully that big "if." If we can continue the leveling-up process that the Democrats have promoted by such things as farm price supports, protecting labor union organization, social security, and all the other great social advances of the New Deal and the Fair Deal, // we can do that, we can avoid another depression. Now, which party are you going to trust to make this big if come true? The Re- publican Party which fought all these meas- ures when they were first introduced, and have fought them ever since ? Or the Demo- cratic Party, which made them a reality? The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it knows the secret of this great pros- perity of ours, and it is not afraid to put that knowledge to work. And don't you let any- one come around and tell you it's phony, either. It has been my experience that when some- body tries to tell you that what you have is not worth very much, he is getting set to do you out of it. You will find that every time in your ex- perience in trying to trade an automobile, the first thing the fellow does when he tries to buy your car is to tell you it's no good, and the first thing you know he has got it away from you at a price that is not fair to you. And that is just what the Republicans want to do with this situation. Now I have been going up and down the country telling the people what I think the issues are in this campaign, and I know exactly what the issues are. You can't get anybody on the other side of the fence to discuss the issues with you. They only go up on extraneous matters — side issues — and want anything to come up but the issues. You will find the Republicans always do that along about this time, before an elec- tion. They work 4 years exploiting the people and voting against everything that is done for them; and then they will go out and tell you how much they love you, and how much they want to do for you, and what they will do if you put them in office. If you are taken in by that, you will get just what you deserve. Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman are not trying to get anything out of you. You can count on them to keep up our high level of prosperity, because they know what makes the American economy tick. They have spent their lives in it, and not in some military camp that is run entirely by differ- ent rules. That is why I know you are going out on 902 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 21 [303] November the 4th and vote the Democratic ticket, and put Adlai Stevenson in the White House for the next 4 years— -and the country will be safe. [8.] Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Ad- dress, Reyburn Plaza, 5:35 p.m., see Item 3°4) [9.] Bridgeport, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 6:50 p.m.) You know, I appreciate most highly this welcome. I am glad to be back in Bridge- port again. The last time I stopped here was just 4 years ago this month, and you gave me a wonderful turnout that morning. This year I am out campaigning for another victory in November. If you are not familiar with the fact, I am not running for anything this time. Well, I will tell you why not. You have asked me a ques- tion, and I think you are entitled to an answer. The reason I am not is because I think I have had every honor that a man is entitled to from the Democratic Party, and somebody else ought to have a chance. You have some fine Democrats on the ticket here in Pennsylvania. Judge Bard — who just introduced me — is an able and dis- tinguished citizen of this great State, and he will make you a great Senator. And your candidate for Congress, Frank Keegan, will represent you well in that body. I hope you will vote for these men. They will give you good representation in Washington, and they will be a great asset to the new administra- tion. I know what it means to have a contrary Congress. I am anxious— very anxious— that the new President shall have a Congress that is in agreement with him. I hope you will vote for Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. They are two fine men. They are two as fine men as ever were nominated by the Democratic Party. Governor Steven- son has been telling the voters just where he stands on all the great issues that face the country today. If you can tell where the Republican candidate stands, you are better off than I am, for I can't find out — and I am in a position to try to find out. This election is going to have a lot to do with your future and the future of this great country of ours. You owe it to yourselves to think it over carefully. Think about which party has worked the hardest for your in- terests for the past 20 years. And think of the gains we have made against Republican opposition. Remember the shape the Republicans left you in, in 1932? Think back to the record of that terrible Republican 80th Congress. Remember what they did to you on the Taft- Hartley Act. And the Republican record has been no better since. If you remember when the National Democratic Convention was meeting in Philadelphia, I went there to accept the nomination, way early in the morning, it was about 2:30, 1 think — and I informed the con- vention, and the country, that I was calling the Republican 80th Congress back and giv- ing them a chance to implement and put into effect their platform — which was a much better platform then than the one they have now. I called them back — and they didn't do a thing. They just sat there. Well, I went out and told the people just exactly what was going on, and you know what happened — they got one of the best lickings they ever got in their lives. I want you to read over the platforms of the two parties this year. I want you to study them carefully. You will find that the Democratic platform is specific. It says ex- actly what it means. And the nominees for President and Vice President are standing squarely on that platform. Now, the Republican platform: I have read it and I find it very difficult to find out what it means. In fact, I think it's about the lousiest platform that has ever been presented to the country. When you read these platforms, and when you study what the candidates have to say, 903 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents just use your head. Just think about the welfare of this great Nation of ours. Just think what it means to the world — and to you, to have things go wrong. I am only asking you to inform yourselves. Use your judgment, and your brain. I don't think that any one of the candidates on the Democratic ticket is talking over the heads of the voters. I think the nominee for Presi- dent is telling you exactly what ought to be done, and he is doing it in language that any intelligent person can understand. But the Republicans are saying that you can't understand it. They are trying to put out propaganda to confuse you. Don't let them do it. Do what I am inviting you to do. And the only reason I am going around over this country is to give you the opportu- nity to think on the issues, to think of the welfare of the free world, think of the wel- fare of this whole great country, and then think of your own welfare. When you have studied what these two platforms stand for, and what the two candi- dates are saying, you can't do anything else on November the 4th but send Adlai Steven- son to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government in your interest. [10.] Reading, Pennsylvania (Platform near the Outer Reading Railroad Station, 7:58 p.m.) I am glad to be back here again. You know, I am a citizen of Reading, or I claim to be, anyway. When I was here in 1948 I was made a member of the America's Club, the oldest Democratic club in the country. And I was also made an honorary member of the Rainbow Fire Co. No. 1, the oldest volunteer fire department in the Nation. I am mighty proud of those things. I have been doing a lot of voluntary fire- fighting since 1948 — Republican fires mosdy. That is what I am doing on this trip. I am putting out a lot of Republican fires. The main difficulty is that I haven't found much of a blaze this year, but the Republicans are putting up a lot of smoke — they are putting up a lot of smoke, and I have to get the air cleared before November. I want you to help me do this. I want you to go to the polls on November the 4th and do some fire- fighting on your own. If you don't — if you let the Republicans get the White House and the Congress, the common ordinary people of this country are going to get burned for sure — and it won't all be smoke. Now that is the principal reason why I am urging you and everyone else to vote for Stevenson for President, and John Spark- man for Vice President. Adlai Stevenson is the finest new leader this country has pro- duced since Franklin Roosevelt. He has a clear understanding of our domestic prob- lems and our foreign problems. And he knows the art of government as well as any man in America. He is working for peace and for progress and for the future of the young people of our country. His adminis- tration will be a young administration. I am sure it will be challenging and reward- ing to the youth of America. Senator Sparkman, the son of an Alabama tenant farmer, has been fighting for the farmer and the small businessman for years. He and Governor Stevenson are men you can put your faith in. I know that you are going to send George Rhodes of Reading back to Congress this year. He has done a job — and he deserves your support in every way you can give it to him. If we could get more men like George Rhodes in Congress, we could get that terrible Taft-Hartley Act repealed, and that would be a big help. I want you to send Judge Bard to the United States Senate. I think you will find that he is a lot more interested in the welfare of the worker, the farmer, and the small businessman than any military man you are likely to find. I don't think you people in Pennsylvania want a big business government, or a military government, either. I think you know that it is a good idea to keep a civilian over the military. 904 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 21 [303] You know, you found that out by con- crete action here not so long ago when it was necessary for me to relieve a five-star gen- eral when he got too big for his britches. I think you will find that there are gen- erals galore in the Republican hierarchy. You will find General Martin, here in Pennsylvania, you have got General Wede- meyer, you have got General MacArthur, you have got General Electric, General Motors, General Foods. The only general that we have got working in the Democratic Party is general welfare. He has always been with the Democrats. Between you and me and the gatepost, I am perfectly willing to let the Republicans have all the generals they want, but I will take the corporals and the privates and we will win the election. The reason I am going up and down the country, doing what I am doing, is to give the people an opportunity to have some view- point on the issues. I am trying to place the issues before the people of the country so they can understand them. The Re- publicans don't want to discuss issues. They want to discuss anything but the issues. They bring in a lot of extraneous matters. They don't care about — ['7 li\e l\e" chant here] — I do, too, and you won't like him so well if you get him for President. What I am trying to get you to do is to think a little bit about the welfare of this great Nation of yours. Study the facts and the issues, as they are. Don't listen to a lot of foolishness they will try to give you on side issues that have nothing to do with a political campaign — [cry of "They won't print it"] — they won't, that's the reason I am around telling you about it. The best thing for you to do is to read the record of the Republicans in the Congress, and the Democrats in the Congress, which you will find in the Congressional Record — the dullest document in the world; but if you will read the fine print, and it's pretty hard to read, you will find that the Democratic record is one that looks out for the people. The Republican record is looking out for special interests in every vote on a specific problem that faces the country. Since I have been in Washington, and I went there January 3, 1935, and spent 10 years in the Senate, I know the record of most of those birds, and they can't fool me. That is the reason I am around trying to get you to study those records. If you will do that — [another '7 li\e l\e" chant] — these guys can want Ike all they want, and they can't get him — I want you to think a little bit. Just use your head. Think about the wel- fare of the free world. Think about the wel- fare of the greatest and most powerful Re- public that the world has ever seen, these United States of America; and then get a little closer to home. Think about your own interests. Think about your own welfare. All I am asking you to do is just that. And study the issues. Go home and pray over them, and think about them, and you can't do anything else on November 4th but send Adlai Stevenson to the White House — and we will have 4 more years of good govern- ment in this great Republic. [11.] Pottsville, Pennsylvania (Address at the Pottsville Stadium, 8:30 p.m., see Item 305) note: In the course of his remarks on October 21 the President referred to Governor Elbert N. Carvel, Lieutenant Governor Alexis I. Bayard, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Joseph S. Scannell, Democratic candidate for Representative, all of Delaware, Mayor John V. Kenny of Jersey City, Archibald S. Alexander, Democratic candidate for Senator, Representatives Edward J. Hart and Alfred D. Sieminski, A. Harry Moore, former Governor, Representatives Peter W. Rodino, Jr., and Hugh J. Addonizio, Martin S. Fox, Democratic candidate for Representative, Mayor James T. Kirk of Eliza- beth, and H. Frank Pettit, Democratic candidate for Representative, all of New Jersey, and Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio. The President also referred to David T. Wilentz, president of the National Democratic Club of New Jersey, John W. Zimmermann, Democratic candidate for Representative from New Jersey, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, Senators William E. Jenner of Indiana, Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and H. Alexander Smith of New Jersey, Ambassador at 905 [303] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents Large Philip C. Jessup, Representative Charles R. Howell of New Jersey, Governors Alfred E. Driscoll of New Jersey, Thomas E. Dewey of New York, and James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, Alfred R. Pierce, Democratic candidate for Representative from New Jersey, and Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, Frank A. Keegan, Democratic candidate for Representative, and Representative George Rhodes, all of Pennsylvania. 304 Address at Reyburn Plaza in Philadelphia. October 21, 1952 Mr, Mayor, distinguished candidates of the Democratic Party, ladies and gentlemen: I am always glad to be in Philadelphia. I started my 1948 campaign here in your Con- vention Hall, when I told you I was going to bring that Republican 8oth Congress back to Washington for a special session, and ask them to live up to their campaign platform promises. I called them back. They did nothing. They showed the whole country they didn't mean what they had put in their platform. And the Democrats won the election. Now, today, I want to talk to you about some of the campaign promises of the Re- publicans in this campaign of 1952. But before I get into that, I want to con- gratulate you people of Philadelphia. Since 1948 you have had a change of ad- ministration in your city government. You have gone Democratic, you swept out of office the corrupt old Republican gang that held back your city for so long. I hope you will keep up the good work this year and send a solid slate of good Democrats to represent this great State in the Congress. Send Judge Bard to the United States Senate. He has made a won- derful record and you can count on him to work and fight for all the people. You have some very fine Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives: William Barrett, William Granahan, Earl Chudoff, William Green, Harrington Herr, and James Byrne. I hope you will elect all of them, for we need men like that in Washington. Now, I want to make it perfectly plain to you, if you don't know it already, this year I am not asking for anything for myself. I have had everything from the Democratic Party that the American people can give a man, or that he can desire. I know what the burdens of the Presidency are — and I think I know when a man ought to lay them down. With a party like ours, with leaders like those of the Democratic Party today, no man is indispensable. And I know I am not. I am campaigning, therefore, not for my- self, but for what I believe to be the good of this great Nation of ours. I think the country ought to accept the competent leadership of Adlai Stevenson. Furthermore, I think the country would be making a terrible mistake if it accepted the reactionary and divided leadership of the Republican Party. I have been deeply concerned over the campaign that is being waged by the Republican Party and its mili- tary candidate. Seldom have I seen a more fraudulent campaign. Seldom have I seen a more cynical appeal to the voters than that the Republican Party is making this year. I have recendy seen some particularly vicious attacks upon the Democratic candi- date for Vice President with respect to his views on civil rights. I want to say simply this: John Sparkman has pledged himself to support the Democratic platform on civil rights. John Sparkman is an honorable man and he will honor that pledge. The Demo- cratic platform is far better than the Repub- lican platform and far better than even the promises of the Republican candidates for President and Vice President. Now I think, my friends, with the scars I bear, there can be no doubt about my devotion to civil rights. With all the earnest- ness at my command, I say that I believe 906 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 21 [304] John Sparkman can and will do more for the cause of civil rights than either of the Re- publican candidates. And in Adlai Stevenson we have a man who has made one of the best civil rights records of any Governor in the United States. His action in the State of Illinois, his statements in this campaign, mark him as a great and vigorous champion of civil rights. Not only as a Democrat, but as a man with more than 30 years of experience in the difficult business of government, I have felt it my duty to go to the people and spell out to them the dangerous, destructive nature of the Republican campaign this year. Now, in this country we have the two- party system. There is a clear and obvious difference between the two great parties — particularly at the level of the Federal Gov- ernment— which is what we are most con- cerned with this year. The Democratic Party believes in a na- tional government that is directly concerned about the problems of the average man — the wage earner, the farmer, the consumer, the homeowner, the small businessman — and in taking action that will benefit him directly. Now the Republican Party believes that the national welfare will be better served if the Government looks out first for the de- mands of the great corporations and the special interests that seek to control the economic power of this great country. The Republican Party believes that if this is done, everybody else will benefit indirectly, and that all will be well. Now this, my friends, is a perfectly clear- cut difference in philosophy. It is a recog- nizable fact of life in Washington. You run into it every time a bill goes to the Congress. For 3 years and n months out of every 4 years, everybody accepts the rule-of-thumb way of determining where each of the two great parties will stand. Is it a question of housing for low-income people? The Democrats want to help local public bodies build the houses. The Re- publicans don't want any houses built unless they are built by those the real estate lobby represents. Is it a question of social security insurance? The Democratic Party wants the people to provide a basic insurance system through their combined resources; the Republicans don't want it done at all unless the insurance companies are willing to do it. Is it a question of the right of the wage- earner to organize and bargain collectively? The Democrats want free collective bargain- ing on fair and even terms; the Republicans want to weight the scale in favor of the em- ployers. Is it a matter of aid to business? The Democrats believe that a worthy enterprise should always have a means of getting credit; the Republicans believe that the private bankers always ought to have the last word on who gets credit. And so it goes — down through the whole list. I happen to think that the Democratic philosophy is the right one. I believe it is what has made our country the strongest, most prosperous, and the most powerful nation in the world. I believe it is opening to every family in this country new and greater opportunities every day — for better homes, better standards of living, better education, and better lives. And I believe the Republican philosophy is dead wrong. I believe their trickle-down theory is what led us into the Great Depres- sion. I believe if they get back in power, with this wrong philosophy, they will sooner or later get us into another depression. And I further believe that this philosophy of big business first will get us into trouble with our foreign relations, and set up foreign trade barriers that will play into the hands of the Communists and weaken the free world. Of course, the Republicans are entitled to stand up for their point of view, and ask 907 [304] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents the voters to adopt it. That is their right under the Constitution. But that is not what they are doing. Every election year they launch a great effort to try to make people believe they don't have this philosophy at all. But this is stricdy vote catching eyewash. Bear that in mind. Now, that doesn't affect their conduct in Congress, where it really counts. It didn't affect their conduct in the 80th Congress, when I called them back after the conventions, and asked them to put their eye- wash promises into effect. It didn't affect them this year, when a majority of the House Republicans voted to kill price controls. Every election year the Republican Party thinks it can deceive the people, or distract them, so that we won't remember what they really stand for. Let's see what the pattern of the Repub- lican campaign is this year. This is most interesting. First of all, they picked a new candidate who had no record at all on any of these issues. They resorted to an old political trick — getting a general, whose career stands for a nonpartisan patriotism, to front for their very partisan purposes. This general was supposed to be above the issues. He was supposed to ride into office on his glory, his glamor, and his smile. But, my friends, we are campaigning on the issues. Just a few days ago in New York, I predicted that we were going to smoke the Republican candidate out on some of the issues. I predicted we were about to see him change his tune to one of "me too." Well, it has happened. We are getting a snowstorm of "me toos" lately. But this year something new has been added. We are getting the fanciest brand of doubletalk I have ever heard in my life. This Republican candidate talks one way in the Midwest, another way in the South, a third way in New York. He talks one way in New Jersey, and another way in New York City — and both on the same day. Now beat that if you can. The Republican candidate says he em- braced Taft and McCarthy and Jenner in order to unify his party. I don't know whether it did that or not — nothing can unify the Republican Party, in my opinion — but it certainly diversified the candidate's speeches. He talks like Bricker in Ohio, he talks like McCarthy in Wisconsin, and he talks like Dewey in New York. By this time the candidate has met him- self coming back so many times that you can compare him with himself on almost every subject. As Walter Lippmann put it the other day — and Mr. Lippmann is one of his sup- porters— this is Lippmann talking, "He has adjusted his position, State by State, section by section, to the demands of the local political machines." When he has talked to audiences he thinks are in favor of world cooperation, he has talked eloquendy of free world unity and declaimed loudly that isolationism is dead. Once or twice he has even dared to praise the Marshall plan, which has saved West- ern Europe from communism. But when he has been before audiences he thinks are isolationist, he has said that we should not be fighting in Korea, that we should not spend so much on our Armed Forces and on foreign aid; and he has sneered at the action we have taken to meet Communist aggression all around the world. He has talked of cutting the budget by anywhere from $20 to $40 billion — the great bulk coming from military expenditures. But when he talks in the cities near military installations, he has assured his listeners that civilian employees are not going to be laid off, and the pay of servicemen is not going to be cut. He once compared social security to a prison, but more recendy he has said he wants it extended. When he thinks his audience is against 908 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 21 [304] public power, he's against it, too, as he was in Idaho. But when he thinks his audience is for it, then he's for it, as he was in Tennessee. On farm programs, he said he was in favor of 100 percent parity — but he didn't say how he was going to help the farmers to get 100 percent parity. More recently he has been more careful on the farm program. At Memphis, he topped off his farm views with this sentence: "Most important, we must be prepared to do the right thing at the right time." There you have a good clear stand on a vital question. He's in favor of civil rights but he's against enforcement by the Government. To pre- vent race discrimination in jobs, he promises to sit down and talk to the 48 Governors. He's sure that'll fix everything. I wonder how well he knows Jimmy Byrnes. In this part of the United States, the Re- publican candidate is talking a more liberal line. He thinks you will forget what he said in Wisconsin or in Texas. But in case you are in any doubt, just remember one thing: The Republican can- didate has asked the American people over and over again to give him a Congress made up of Old Guard, dinosaur Republicans. He has committed himself to give the Old Guard its full share of positions, high and low, in the executive branch. If the Republican candidate should be elected, he'd be completely surrounded, boxed in, and handcuffed by the Old Guard. And I don't think he would mind it a bit. He seems perfectly at home with them. The Old Guard in the Congress and the executive branch would be his advisers then, as they are on his campaign train now. They would be working night and day for the special interests, as they always have been. And they would set the tone of his administra- tion. Now, my friends, this is the picture of the Government if the Republicans are elected. You would have as President a man with- out experience in civil life, whose position on the great issues of our time has wavered with the political winds. Around him would be the men who have been against all that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have accomplished for the people of the United States in the past 20 years. In the Congress you would have reactionary leadership from one end to the other, and a rank and file that has proved itself to be isolationist in interna- tional affairs, and the tool of the special in- terests here at home. You would be risking our chance at world peace, and you would be risking prosperity at home. The Democratic Party offers you, by con- trast, a candidate for President who has not wavered during his entire campaign, a man who has made you no false promises — the most distinguished Governor of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson. He heads the ticket of a party whose principles have been proved in 20 years of service to this country. This election is a most important one — one of the most vital in the history of the country. Do not make your choice lightly. Look at the party as well as the candidate. Look at more than the surface of the man — look at the consistency of his principles and at the record of what he believes. And when you do, I know you will make the right choice. I know you will elect a strong Democratic Congress. I know you will elect John Sparkman and that you will send to the White House the great Gover- nor, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. note: The President spoke at 5:35 p.m., at Reyburn Plaza, Philadelphia, Pa. In his opening words he referred to Mayor Joseph S. Clark, Jr., of Philadel- phia. Later he referred to Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, Representatives William A. Barrett, William T. Granahan, Earl ChudofT, and William J. Green, Jr., Harrington Herr and James A. Byrne, Democratic candidates for Representative, all of Pennsylvania, Senators Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and William E. Jenner of Indiana, Walter Lippmann of the New York Herald-Tribune, and Governor James F. Byrnes of South Carolina. 909 [305] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents 305 Address in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. October 21, 1952 Mr. Chairman: I am delighted at the cordial reception you folks have given me tonight. I don't think I ever saw as large a congregation as was down at the station tonight. I hope you will support Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman on November the 4th. I hope you will elect Judge Bard to the United States Senate. And I hope you will elect Peter Krehel — who is typical of our fine new crop of young Democrats — to the House of Representatives. I must confess I was a little disappointed 4 years ago that Pennsylvania did not join the majority of the States of the Union in endorsing the policies of the Democratic Party. This year you have an opportunity to rectify that mistake. As a matter of fact, Fm sure the results in Pennsylvania in 1948 did not reflect the real feelings of the citizens of this State. I think the basic facts show up in an analysis of the voting. Then, as now, more Pennsyl- vanians believed in the great progressive pro- grams of the New Deal and the Fair Deal than opposed them. But the other side got a higher proportion of its supporters to the polls. So I say to you, it's all important what you do between now and November the 4th. Let's get the message out among our friends and neighbors that they've got to turn out for Adlai Stevenson and the rest of the Demo- cratic ticket on election day. Let's get Pennsylvania back on the right track. And in return, I know that Adlai Stevenson will give you some of the finest leadership that has ever come from any President of the United States. He has been a great Governor of a great State. He is a clear, straight thinker. He is a man of deep convictions, and loyalty to principles. He will bring a change in government, but it will be a change that will build on all the constructive measures we have taken in the last 20 years. I have been concerned for some time about unemployment in the hard coal fields of Pennsylvania. This is one of the few areas of the country where unemployment has been relatively high even in the most prosperous times. You have a special prob- lem here in the long-term decline of your basic anthracite industry. One of the ways in which the Federal Government is trying to help this area is by conducting research on the conservation of our coal resources and the utilization of coal. This research is going on at the anthracite laboratory at Schuylkill Haven, just down the road from here. We had quite a fight getting any money for this laboratory from that "do-nothing" Republican 80th Congress. In fact, the Republican House killed the whole appropriation, but we managed to get it restored in the Senate, thanks to the hard work of your Senator, Frank Myers. The only long-run solution to your em- ployment problem is, of course, to get new industries to develop here along with coal mining. I am glad to see that Pottsville and the other communities of Schuylkill County have been making real progress in that direc- tion. I am told that employment in all kinds of manufacturing in this county has gone up 75 percent since 1940. That is good, and I congratulate you on it. The one thing that will help most to bring new industries to Pottsville, and keep full employment in the ones you have, is gen- eral prosperity in the country as a whole. Now, the policies of the National Govern- ment have a great deal to do with whether we have full employment and an expanding economy, or whether we have a depression. We learned in 1929 that unwise policies can plunge the country into a depression. And we've learned over and over again since 1932 that wise policies can lead us out of depression and into a continuing prosperity. What do the Republicans say about the problem of full employment? Their plat- 910 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 21 [305] form doesn't even mention it. What it says — and you wouldn't believe it if you didn't read it — is that initiative has been deadened, and that free enterprise has been wrecked. Well, as I told one audience last week, if this country is a wreck, it is a mighty pros- perous wreck. For a long time I have been wondering how any intelligent people could talk such nonsense. What could they possibly mean? Now I think I've found the answers. It's all in the study just completed by a fellow Pennsylvanian of yours, Prof. Simon Kuz- nets of the University of Pennsylvania, who has put together some of the most revealing statistics I have ever seen. Professor Kuznets found that in the 20 years between 1929 and 1948 the incomes of the bottom 99 percent of the population have more than doubled. Then Professor Kuznets found that the richest 1 percent of the population didn't do nearly so well — their incomes rose by only 8 percent. But here's the real point. In 1929 there were 513 individuals with incomes of over a million dollars a year. In 1948 there were only 149 people who made more than a mil- lion dollars. That's what the Republicans mean when they say a man can't get ahead in the world any more. The 99 percent of the population may have doubled their income, but we lost 364 millionaires. What's the use of work- ing— a man can't even make a measly million dollars any more! In 1929 the people in that richest 1 percent made 20 times as much as the average of the other 99 percent. Now they make only 10 times as much. During the whole period of the Republican i92o's, the distribution of income in this country was getting more and more unequal. The upper 5 percent of the population in- creased its income rapidly, but the lower 95 percent of the population experienced an actual decline in per capita income. A writer in the American Economic Review, commenting on this study, says "It is somewhat surprising to find that the mass of the population did not participate to a greater extent in the boom times of the twenties." Well, it should not surprise anyone who was around then. The Government, and the whole country, was run in the interests of that top 5 percent — and particularly those 513 millionaires. All through the Republican decade of the 1920's, that process of concentration of wealth and income went on. By 1929, in- equality was as great as at any time in his- tory. One percent of the people got nearly 14 percent of the country's income — after taxes. Income was concentrated in so few hands that it couldn't possibly be spent. When the man who had all the money couldn't spend it, the producer had no mar- ket, the worker had no job. And so we had a crash that shook the world. The Democratic Party, under President Roosevelt, had to take a mighty heroic step to get income and wealth back in the hands of the people, so that there would be enough purchasing power to keep the production system going. But we succeeded, and you see the results. It may be tough on the millionaires, but the income of the 99 percent of the population has gone up by 124 percent. If you elect Republicans this year, that concentration process is going to start all over again. That's what they mean when they say they want to see free enterprise turned loose. We'll have more million- aires— and we'll build up to another crash. If you elect Democrats, the Democratic Party will continue to worry about the 99 percent. The 1 percent will take care of themselves as usual. And we'll continue to have full employment and prosperity for the whole country. In the long run the only thing that's good for the country is to have everybody work- ing, and working at decent wages. Then more things are produced, farmers have a market, and people can keep on buying to 911 [305] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents keep production going. There's more to go around, and more for everybody — except maybe those 513 millionaires who want more than any human being can possibly use. The Democratic Party doesn't propose to let the country plunge into a depression to let 500 greedy people make a million dollars. Now, I want to change the subject slight- ly and refer to the loose and irresponsible charges the Republican candidate for Presi- dent has been making. He says the Demo- cratic administration is responsible for everything that's wrong in the world. He's been trying to make political capital out of anything he thinks anybody might be unhappy about — no matter how false and reckless his charges are. I can't attempt to answer them all tonight. But I do have time to say a few words about one that is particularly getting under my skin. That's the charge that the Democratic ad- ministration is responsible for high prices. I've been sitting in the White House fight- ing high prices for 7 years. I haven't had an ounce of help from the Republican Party in the Congress. They've voted to sabotage everything we've tried to do to keep prices down. And now they have the gall to try to blame us for high prices. I am not going to let them get away with it. Let me tell you the facts. During World War II people saved a lot of money, because they couldn't buy such things as automobiles and refrigerators and they were rationed on a lot of other things. So when the war ended, we had a huge vol- ume of pent-up purchasing power. People had war bonds, and savings accounts, and they were making good money. During the war we had kept the lid on in- flation by using price and wage controls. After the war civilian production had a long way to go before it could catch up with the demand. So it was imperative to continue price controls. That's when I had my first big battle on price control with the Republicans in Con- gress. And I lost it. The price control law was due to expire on June 30, 1946. The special interests descended on the Congress like a swarm of locusts. The Republicans in the Congress lined up solidly with the special interest lobbies, as they always do, and the Congress gave me a bill so bad that it would have made price control an utter farce. I vetoed it, and asked for a better law. But the Congress chose instead to let the price control law expire on June 30, 1946. For nearly a month, we had no price control. Finally, we got a bill, but it was a very weak bill and by that time the damage had been done. By late in the year, everyone knew that this inadequate law was unworkable, so there was nothing to do but end price controls. A majority of the Democratic Party in the Congress was with me in that entire price control fight. But some Democrats joined with an almost solid lineup of the Republicans to scuttle price control, and that did it. The six months after the end of OPA saw the fastest inflation in the history of the country. The cost of living rose 15 percent in 6 months. And the Republicans, who drove the knife into the back of the consumer, now have the nerve to blame the Democratic administra- tion for high prices ! Now, if you can beat that, I'll pay for lying! Then we went through the same story after Korea. In June of 1950, as soon as the Communist hordes marched over the 38th parallel, people rushed out to buy. Nobody could have pre- vented that. People had money. They knew we were in a crisis. They remembered the shortages of World War II, so they just spent their money. And prices went up. It was the third month after Korea before a price control law could be written. Then, if you remember, we had a lull in the Korean fighting. The North Koreans 912 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 21 [305] were whipped, and the war seemed about to end. People stopped buying, and the infla- tionary wave subsided. But then the Chinese Communists swarmed into Korea, General MacArthur began his retreat from the Yalu, and people got scared again. We had a second wave of buying, and prices rose. That was the in- flationary wave we stopped with a general freeze of prices in January 195 1. Since then I've had to go through two bat- tles with the Republicans in the Congress even to get price control extended. Each time the law was extended, it was riddled with Republican amendments. The worst of the amendments bears a prominent Republican name — that of Sena- tor Capehart of Indiana. That terrible amendment is costing the consumers of this country about a billion dollars a year in higher ceiling prices. Talk about responsibility for high prices! Republican Senators voted 36 to 5 last year to prevent rollbacks in prices. This year, they voted 22 to 14 to end all price and wage controls, and only a Democratic vote of 43 to 1 saved the price control law. In the House of Representatives, after Korea, the Republican Members voted by a 4 to 1 majority to end all rent control. Just this year, also by a vote of 4 to 1, they voted to suspend price control on everything except the very few commodities that are rationed. That's the Republican record. In one speech, the Republican candidate had the effrontery to say "the administration's con- trols over prices are nothing but a weak stop-gap." They're better than that — but with no credit to the Republicans. Sometimes I think the Republican hatchet work on price control had a double motive. The first motive was to give the speculators and profiteers what they wanted. The sec- ond was to let prices go up and then blame those high prices on the Democratic admin- istration. Well, they can't get away with it. The record is there, for everybody to read. You can read it clear through, from 1946 to 1952, and you will not find many instances where the majority of the Republicans in Congress show the slightest concern for the house- wives of America — or the pensioners and others living on fixed incomes — when price and rent control was being voted on. To put the Republicans in charge of price control would be like putting a fox in charge of protecting your chickens. You can count it a dead-sure cinch that if you elect Republicans on November the 4th they're going to scrap all price and rent control. That's the story on the cost of living. You can draw your own conclusion about the Republican candidate. Either he's com- pletely uninformed on economics and on his party's record in Congress, or he's indulging in the sheerest hypocrisy. I don't know which it is. On this and a great many other issues, I can't tell whether his campaign line in due to lack of understanding or deliberate misrepresentation. But either one is bad enough. The Democratic candidate laid out in his speech in Baltimore last month a clear-cut program for inflation control, including the continuation of price and rent control, as long as inflation cannot be checked by any other means. He has given you a clear-cut and consistent program on every other issue that confronts the country. The difference between his program and the empty, hypo- critical promises of his opponent on a score of issues, including this one, has by now become crystal clear. The only reason I am going around the country talking to you is to get you to think a little, to get you to study the record, in- form yourselves. Then make up your minds on what is best for the country, what is best for you, and what is best for the world. If you will do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and we will have a good government for the next 4 years — and the world and the country will be safe. note: The President spoke at 8:30 p.m. at the Potts- ville Stadium, Pottsville, Pa. His opening words referred to James V. Ryan, Democratic county chair- 913 [305] Oct. 21 Public Papers of the Presidents man and chairman of the meeting. Later he re- ferred to Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, Peter Krehel, Democratic candidate for Representative, and former Senator Francis J. Myers, all of Pennsylvania, Simon S. Kuznets, profes- sor of economic statistics at the University of Penn- sylvania, and Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana. 306 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Pennsylvania. October 22, 1952 [1.] Scranton, Pennsylvania (Courthouse, 8:35 a.m.) Mr. Mayor, distinguished candidates for election on the Democratic ticket: I am very happy to be back in Scranton today. This is good Democratic country and there's nothing I like better than to visit with Democrats. I remember very well how kindly you received me when I spoke here just 4 years ago tomorrow. And I remem- ber, too, the solid Democratic majority you gave me in the election in 1948. And I cer- tainly appreciated it. You know, there is one thing I am happy about. You have a good newspaper with the courage to give you the facts, in the Scranton Times. And I want to say to you that that sort of newspaper is decidedly in the minority these days. I have been all over the United States, from one end of the country to the other, and about 90 percent of the press — [here some tables, with sound equipment and too many people standing on them, gave way] — is against the Democrats. Anybody get hurt? Nobody's hurt — I am glad to say. Somebody knocked out the sound equipment, but then I guess that will be good for you. As you well know, I have not come here — I am afraid the sound has gone off, but they will get it fixed directly; get it fixed? — ask- ing anything for myself. The Democratic Party has given me everything that a man could ask. I have had every honor that the party can give me. And I am not like a lot of people who get everything out of the Democratic Party and then say, "I like Ike." I do like Ike, but I like him in the Army. I don't think he belongs in the White House. I am out here campaigning for a very, very great man — the Governor of Illinois, who will make you a good President, Adlai Stevenson. I'm not going to give you a lecture about Governor Stevenson today. He'll be here to speak for himself next week, on John Mitchell Day. Then you'll have a chance to see for your- selves that he is the best new leader to emerge in this country since another Governor went to Washington in 1932 — Franklin Roosevelt. I hope you'll enjoy his visit. John Mitchell Day in Scranton is always a good day, for John Mitchell was a good man and a great trade union leader. And after it is over, I hope you'll go out and vote for Adlai Stevenson. And I am sure that is exactly what Scranton is going to do. He is the man we need as President, these next 4 years. And to support him, we will need a real working majority of liberal Democrats in the Congress. We need men like Judge Bard in the Sen- ate— take a bow, Judge — to help our new President carry out the pledges of the Demo- cratic Party. We need men like Harry O'Neill in the House of Representatives. Everybody's been yelling at the car I am in this morning "Give 'em hell, Harry," and I thought they were talking to Harry O'Neill. I urge you to vote for all these candidates on November the 4th. They are good Demo- crats and your friends. Your interests and your country's interests will be safe with them. You people here in Scranton know how important it is to have a national administra- tion that is concerned about your problems, 914 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [306] and anxious to help you to solve them. Harry O'Neill and your Democratic Party leaders have done a great deal to get new con- tracts in here and to create new opportunities. That is because the Democrats believe in us- ing the power of the Government for the benefit of all the people, and not for just a few. For 20 years the Democratic Party has been working to promote the interests and the welfare of the plain people in this coun- try. That was the meaning and the purpose of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal — and of Harry Truman's Fair Deal. During this whole period, for 3 years and 1 1 months out of every 4 years, we have had to fight ofl Republican attempts to wreck the programs that were put on the books by the New Deal and the Fair Deal. At every ses- sion of Congress — as Harry O'Neill can tell you — we have had a struggle with the Re- publican obstructionists. They have put things in the way of every progressive meas- ure we have offered. This goes on all the time — day in and day out — until the last few weeks of the campaign for President. And then they come around and try to tell you that they have been for everything. Then, suddenly, as you will find, the Republican candidates begin to take an interest in the people, begin to sing a strange new song to the people of the country. It is called the "me too" song. It's a marvelous thing to hear. You may remember the old story about the maidens who sat on a rock, and sang sweet songs to addle the brains of passing sailors and cause their ships to crash. Well, the Republican song, at this time in an election year, is just about the same thing. It is intended to beguile the voters and to addle their brains — and cause them to go crashing on the rocks of a Republican vic- tory in the election. This year the Republican candidate for President spent the first 6 weeks of the cam- paign embracing all the reactionary leaders in his party — the men who made the Re- publican record of obstruction in the Con- gress. He hugged them all. Indeed, Sen- ator Taft, "Mr. Republican" himself, re- ceived the special privilege of telling the country, on the candidate's behalf, that they were in complete agreement on all domestic issues. Don't forget that, now. He is in complete agreement with Taft on all domes- tic issues. First, the Republican candidate embraced the Old Guard leaders — and their record, too. A few days ago came a sudden shift. The sweet singing began. The "me too" song was heard in the land — just as Willkie sang it, and just as Dewey sang it. There is a verse of this song for almost every issue. Today, I have time to tell you of only one — the "me too" version of social security. Now, it is a matter of plain fact that our original social security law was one of the great accomplishments of Franklin Roose- velt's New Deal. And it's also a fact that the big expansion of social security was put through by the Fair Deal — after the election of 1948. And, finally, it's a fact that right from the beginning, a great majority of the Repub- licans in the Congress have fought, blocked, and hampered our social security program. Yet the Republican candidate for Presi- dent spoke in Los Angeles — now beat that, if you can! — a few days ago and claimed that his party was in favor of social security and wanted to improve and expand it. He even made the startling assertion — and I quote him directly — that "the social secu- rity law was a bipartisan law." He called it bipartisan and said the overwhelming major- ity of his party voted for it. That, my friends, is taking extreme liberties with the truth. I am not sure, of course, that the candidate was deliberately trying to deceive the people. It may well be that he just doesn't know the facts of his party's record. But whether he knows the facts or not, I think you ought to know them, and so I'm going to give them to you. Here is the record: 9J5 [306] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents In 1935 the Republican Congressmen voted — 95 to 1 — to eliminate old-age insur- ance from the original social security bill. In 1936 the Republicans tried to win the election by making social security an issue — their candidate for President — and I bet you can't name him — called it a "cruel hoax," and actually advocated its repeal. In 1939 the Republican Senators voted — 9 to 1 — against raising the old-age assistance grants, and to help the poorer States. In 1948 the Republican 80th Congress — that terrible Congress on which I won the election — passed a bill over my veto that took the protection away from nearly 1 mil- lion people. The Republicans in both Houses voted overwhelmingly for that proposition. In 1949 the Republican Congressmen voted — 4 to 1 — to cripple the great social security expansion we put through that year. And just this year — in 1952 — almost two- thirds of the Republican Congressmen voted against a bill that would increase social secur- ity benefits. Now, let me give you one word of warn- ing. The Republicans have tried to make much of the fact that on a few occasions a majority of their Senators and Congress- men voted for final passage of social secur- ity bills. That has been so, but it does not change the facts as I have given them to you. The Republicans, you see, have a favorite trick — it's an old trick, as Congressman O'Neill can tell you — which they use all the time to confuse the voters and obscure their real intentions. They will fight as hard as they can against a progressive bill — voting for crippling amendments, or voting for a recommittal motion which would turn the bill back to committee and bury it there. Then, if we defeat them on all these efforts, they sometimes go along and vote for final passage — thus making a record to take home to their unwary constituents. That is what they did on the original social security bill in 1935 and again, one time, this year. But if you look into the real votes, the key votes, the ones that make the difference between good laws and bad, you'll find most of the Republicans on the wrong side, time after time, just as I have demon- strated here today. There is one other word of warning I would give you. The "me too" statements the Republican candidate is making now, about our social security laws, apply not only to his party's record and intentions, but to his own personal position. In his speech in Los Angeles he said of social security: "This is a matter that is much on my heart." Well, if the security of our people is "much on his heart" it has only recently arrived there. It has only been 3 years since this candidate, speaking for himself, not as a politician, told an audience in Texas: "If all the Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They will have enough to eat, a bed to sleep on, and a roof over their heads." On another occasion he said: "In these times we hear so much of security ... I should think the best example of it would be a man serving a lifetime prison sentence." Now which would you rather do, have social security or go to jail? Answer me! My friends, it has been 20 years since we had in the White House a man who did not really feel — deeply and personally — the needs and rights of his fellow citizens for a secure livelihood and a secure future. Yet now the Republicans offer you a man who has had complete social security in the Army all his life, but he has scorned the needs of others — except in that brief interval of time, the "me too" phase of the Republican campaign in a presidential election year. Think, my friends, think hard. Where would you be, where would our country be, if we were dependent on a party with the kind of record I have described — or on a President with the basic attitude this man expressed, before he became a candidate for public office? I think that is a risk you cannot afford to take. Don't listen merely to the songs these 916 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [306] people sing to you now. Look at the record. Look at what they have done — and said — in all the years past. I urge upon you to think of your own in- terests. Remember that you, the people, have the right and the duty to choose the kind of government which shall rule this country. And it's your business to go to the polls on election day and exercise your right to tell the country what it should do for the next 4 years. The choice is up to you. When you go to the polls, register that choice, vote for your- selves. Vote for what helps you. Vote in your own interests and vote for the best in- terests of the country. And when you do that, we will have a Democratic administration for the next 4 years, and the country and the world will be safe. Thank you a lot. [2.] Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania (Wilkes-Barre Square, 9:55 a.m.) Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Congressman Flood: I thank you most sincerely for this recep- tion. I believe this welcome is bigger than it was when I was here in 1948. At that time I was trying to get a job for myself. Now I am not running for anything. I am trying to help another fellow get a job. You have some fine candidates here in Pennsylvania. You have just met two of them — Judge Bard and Dan Flood. I like both of these gentlemen, and I sincerely hope you will keep Dan Flood in Washington, and send Judge Bard down there to do you a good job in the Senate. Now I am out trying to help elect the Democratic ticket for two reasons. First, because I believe that the Democratic Party stands for those things that are best for all the people. And second, I am grateful to the Democratic Party because it has done everything for me that any one man could ever expect. I have had every honor at the hands of the Democratic Party that any man can have — and I am grateful. I am not like a lot of these birds that get everything out of the party and then get rich and join the Republican Party. I never expect to get rich, but I never expect to join the Republican Party, either — even if I do. And I want to tell you another thing. In my opinion, this is the most important election since the Civil War. This election will decide whether we go back to the days of William McKinley or whether we will go forward with the progressive ideas of the Democratic Party. It is important for your own interests and for the interests of the whole country that you elect as the next President of the United States the man who has made a great rec- ord as Governor of Illinois — Adlai Steven- son. When I was here in 1948, I told you the big issue in the campaign was the people against the special interests. Now that is just as true today as it was in 1948, and it can be illustrated time and again. Take one example. That awful Taft- Hartley law. Are you going to vote for your- selves, or against yourselves? The Repub- lican platform endorsed that law. And I want to say to you the objective of the 80th Congress that I was campaigning against in 1948 was to drive the laboring man back to slavery. And that is what they will do again if the Republicans get control of this country. Listen to what the Republican platform in 1952 says, and I quote: "We favor the re- tention of the Taft-Hartley Act, which guar- antees to the workingman the right to quit his job at any time." And it also keeps him from organizing if he wants to, and holds him down by injunction — which I wouldn't use, as you steelworkers know. Now, if you can beat that — well, if you go out and vote for a thing like that, you ought to have your head examined, I'll say that. The Republicans seem to be hipped on the idea of having people quit their jobs. They have had a lot of experience with it. And when they were last in power, there were 12 917 55-672—^68- -61 [306] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents to 14 million unemployed on the streets. You know, they had two depressions, they did, within 25 years. In the first one they had 7 million unemployed, the next time they had 14 million unemployed, and if you put them back you will probably have 28 million before you get through. So they let the people quit their jobs by invitation and not because they have to. Now, let me tell you about some more Republican ideas on the Taft-Hartley Act, and what they think should be done to la- bor. I have got a copy of the Wall Street Journal here. I don't very often read the Wall Street Journal, but somebody inter- ested in politics sent me this copy. The head- line on the front page says, "New labor law. Congress ponders curb on industry-wide pay bargaining by unions" — wants a curb on that. And the headline says: "Mr. Taft has some ideas." I'll bet he has all right. Mr. Taft, you know, is going to run this admin- istration if you elect the Republicans, because he will control the Senate. The article goes on to say: ". . . if the Re- publicans hold their own or gain new strength in the House or Senate, it is almost certain that there will be a new effort next year to crack down on the unions." Now this is the Wall Street Journal talking, not me — I did my talking before I got to this quote. "If the GOP controls Congress by a com- fortable margin, the effort will probably succeed." Now that is the end of what the Wall Street Journal said. We also have some other clues on what the Republicans want to do about Taft-Hartley. I have here the Washington Bulletin of the National Association of Manufacturers, that great liberal organization that is always looking out for the people. It is dated October 7, 1952, and here is what it says — the National Association of Manufacturers talking — they don't like me very well, for some reason: "With the cam- paign in full swing, it already is possible to forecast some of the major struggles in Con- gress next winter. Regardless of who wins, the Taft-Hardey law must be defended. Stevenson wants it repealed and replaced. Eisenhower holds it 'might be used to break unions.' This remark will prompt liberals to demand revision. If revision is consid- ered, the whole act is open to amendment." Now that is the National Association of Manufacturers talking. So there you have the National Association of Manufacturers in agreement with the Re- publican platform — and I guess that is no surprise to you people. You know which party represents Wall Street and the National Association of Manu- facturers in Congress. It is not the Demo- cratic Party. It is the Republican Party. You also know it is the Democratic Party that stands up for the plain people of Amer- ica and against the lobbies. You know where the Democratic Party stands on Taft- Hardey. It's in the platform. We want it repealed and replaced with a fair law. I have tried to get that terrible law re- pealed, but the Republicans in Congress always voted for Taft-Hartley, and they get a few Democrats — well, I would say they are not Democrats, they are going under a Democratic label, they are Dixiecrats and Shivercrats, and a few that are no friends of yours, they are just so-called Democrats — to vote with them. Then things stood pat. That's the reason we need to elect a good Democratic majority to the Congress. That is why we must elect a President who will stand up and fight for the rights of labor. Now it is up to you. You people are the Government. You exercise your control of the Government when you vote. And when you don't exercise that control, when you don't vote, and then you quarrel about the kind of government you get, you "ain't got nobody" to blame but yourselves. The only reason I am going up and down this country trying to tell you the issues is because I want you to start thinking. Start thinking in your own interests. Start think- ing for the welfare of this great Nation of ours. If you do that, you will go down to the 918 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [306] polls on the 4th day of November and you will elect Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man President and Vice President of this great United States, and we will continue to have 4 more years of prosperous and free government. Thank you very much. [3.] Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 11:22 a.m.) Good morning. I appreciate very much this reception. I am very glad to be with you again. It is a beautiful morning, but I have already been over half of Pennsyl- vania this morning — going and coming — and I have enjoyed that, too. I am working day and night, in case you don't know it, for the Democratic ticket. Because I believe that we must elect people who will carry forward our programs to bring prosperity at home and world peace abroad. I hope you will send Pat McGowan to Congress, and elect Judge Bard to the Sen- ate. If you have your own interests at heart, you will elect Adlai Stevenson of Illinois President of the United States. He is a man of principle, who tells you where he stands on the issues. He is a man you can trust. And his great record as Governor of Illi- nois shows that he is well qualified to be President of the United States. Now the Republican candidate won't tell you where he stands on the issues. He has a different policy for each of the 48 States, and he is asking you to sign a blank check. The General says one thing in the East. He says another thing in the West. What he says in the North is different from what he says in the South. His advisers are tell- ing him that is smart politics. I won't say what I think about the morals of it, but I say I don't think it's even smart politics. I don't think the American people are going to be fooled that easily. I don't think they are going to let him get away with doubletalk. I have always thought that honesty is best in politics, just as it is anywhere else. I have got into trouble sometimes by saying just exactly what I thought. You may have heard something about that at one time or another. But I have stuck to my guns, and I know that it pays in the long run. The true facts finally get out to the people, no matter how much the one-party press tries to cover them up or distort them. It is absolutely necessary to have as President a man who has the backbone to stand firm for what is right. The President has to make many decisions that determine what happens to the people of this country. If he can't stand up against the pressures, or if he doesn't know what he is doing, he could plunge us into another depression — or even worse, he might get us into a third world war. My friends, I don't think you can afford to take a chance on a man who has jumped around on the issues the way the Repub- lican candidate has in this campaign. I am asking you to weigh these issues carefully. I am out going up and down the country trying to get people to think. I am not running for anything. I will be out of a job January 20th, and I may be around trying to get you to get one for me. But I am very much interested in this great country of ours. I am very much interested in the endeavor which I have been making for 7 years to get a world peace that will stand up and last beyond your generation. If that can be done, we are facing the greatest age in history. Now, in order to face that age as we should, you should study the issues in this campaign. In my opinion, this is the most important campaign that we have gone through since the Civil War. It means the future of the world is at stake. The future of this great Republic is at stake, and your own future is at stake. If you don't have somebody in the White House, and if you don't have a Congress who is looking forward instead of backward, you will be in a bad way over the next 4 years. 919 [306] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents Now if you will just study the situation, as I am begging you to, use your brains and your head, then on the 4th of November you will go to the polls and you will vote for the welfare of the free world, you will vote for the forward-looking progress for this the greatest Republic in history, and you will vote for your own interests. And if you do that, you can't help but vote the Democratic ticket and have 4 more years of good government in this country. And you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and you will send a Demo- cratic delegation from Pennsylvania to the Congress, and then things will go forward instead of backward. Thank you very much. [4.] Northumberland, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 12:38 p.m.) I am very appreciative of this nice wel- come, and I am glad to be here this morning. I understand that Joseph Priestley, the famous British scientist, lived here from 1794 to 1804 — 10 years. He was a great progressive scientist and scholar, and I think he would be amazed if he could see the mir- acle of the 20th century. And I think he would also be amazed if he could see the courtesy of the young men and young women of this great day and age. It is amazing to me — both of them, to look back just 20 years, and consider the tremendous progress we have made in this country. We have emerged from the depths of a terrible depression with 14 million unemployed, to become the strongest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. This has happened under the sound policies of 20 years of Democratic leadership. It has happened, despite the constant, nagging opposition of the backward-looking Republican Party. I hope you will think about these things when you go to the polls to vote on Novem- ber the 4th. I hope you will consider which party has worked the hardest for the welfare of all the plain everyday people in this coun- try, and what the results have been. And I believe you should reflect carefully on what your own future would be under a party of reaction — a party that is controlled by the big money interests, by a party that doesn't care a thing about your personal welfare. I believe we stand at the threshold of the greatest age in history. With all the modern miracles of science, we can make this world a better place to live in than we can ever possibly dream about. I wish I were 18 instead of 68. But I ex- pect to live to be, a hundred, anyway, and I'll see some of it anyway — though not all of it. If I were your age I would be living 20 years from now in the greatest age of his- tory— after we have 20 more years of Demo- cratic rule. Now, if we are going to achieve that won- derful future, we must have a forward- looking — I want you young people to listen to this — you have got to have a forward- looking Government, one that is thinking about the future, and not one that is trying to turn the clock back to William McKinley in 1896, which is what the Republican Party wants to do. You young people ought to do a little bit of studying of history. You ought to study history — you ought to inform yourselves on how it comes that some of you want to roll backwards instead of go forward. You can't do that. The world won't stand still for you. You have got to go forward. I am urging you to use a little common- sense, to use a little judgment, to do a litde earnest studying, not only of history but of conditions as they affect you and your future. When you do that, you won't do but one thing, you will go home and pray over them and tell your momma and poppa that — you can't vote, you know — nine-tenths of you can't vote, but you will vote in the next election, maybe — 2 or 3 years from now. But you ought to go home and tell your mom and poppa that you want this to be a coun- 920 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [306] try of progress, one that looks forward. And you won't have it under Taft. Taft will run the Government, not Ike. Ike won't have a word to say about the policies. In the first place, my young friends, Ike is not going to get a chance to operate, you can be sure of that. So, I am advising you — I am advising you, for your own good — I am 68 years old and I have had a lot of experience — I have had a lot of experience — consider these things. Now, you young people, you had a good time here this morning — and so have I. I like you. I like for you to yell your lungs out, and you ought to be on one side or other of the fence. But I don't want to see you go backward, I don't want to see you back up down the track. I want to see you go forward the other way. Vote for the welfare of the country. Now if you use a little judgment, use your head, you can't do but one thing — because the peo- ple on this side — [indicating] — can vote — you can't do but one thing, and that is on November the 4th, vote the Democratic ticket and the country will be safe for an- other 4 years. [5.] WlLLIAMSPORT, PENNSYLVANIA (Rear platform, 1 140 p.m.) You know, I am very glad to be in Wil- liamsport today. I appreciate this reception more than I can tell you. Somebody told me that Williamsport was the place where the little baseball league started. Now I am something of a fan, although not a very good one. I am not nearly so good a fan as the Chief Justice of the United States. He can tell you the history of every player, his batting average, how many games he has won and lost. But I can't do that, although I like baseball games. I think one of the finest things in the world is to get young people interested in that great American sport. So I congratulate you on having done something that is good for citizenship. You may have heard a rumor as to why I am in Pennsylvania. Well, I am going to let you in on a secret, I am out campaign- ing for the Democratic ticket. I have been telling the people around the country that there is one fundamental issue in this cam- paign, and that is the kind of party you want to control your Government. The Democratic Party is the party of the plain everyday people. That party has been working for your interests for 20 years. The Republican Party is the rich man's party, the party that is controlled by the oil lobby, and giant corporations, the power lobby, and the big financial interests. You know, I say down in Washington that there is the oil lobby, there is the China lobby, there is the real estate lobby, the Na- tional Association of Manufacturers lobby, and the only lobbyist that the common every- day man has in Washington to look after his interests entirely is the President of the United States. So you had better think about that. I think you know why the Republican Party is not your party. I think you know their record. The Republicans sat on their hands after the depression hit in 1929. They scarcely lifted a finger to help them — and we had about 14 million unemployed. They fought Franklin Roosevelt's efforts to bring you out of that depression, because they placed the greed of the special inter- ests above the welfare of all the people. The Republicans fought the New Deal all the way — and they have fought me tooth and toenail ever since I have been President, be- cause I have stood up against them, because I have been working for the people. I think it is an honor to have that sort of people fight you. Now in Congress they have been against social security, against minimum wage, against the Wagner Act, against full em- ployment legislation, against public housing, against unemployment compensation, against Federal aid for schools and hospitals, against price controls and rent controls. I haven't been able to find out anything I can 921 [306] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents tell you that they are far. They have been against everything that has been for the wel- fare of this country. The Old Guard reactionary Republican Party is no friend of yours. You ought to remember that. Those Republicans are always trying to pull a fast one on you — and they are trying to do it again this year. They knew they couldn't win this election on their terrible reactionary record which I have just read to you, so they decided to try to camouflage it. So they picked a general, a man with 40 years experience in the Army, a man with no experience in civilian affairs, a military hero who would talk in general- ities. And they have been telling him what to say, making sure he doesn't tell you the true facts about the Republican record. They don't dare let that record out, and to tell you the honest truth, I think the good General doesn't know the facts. I don't think he knows what it is all about — that's the reason he gets mixed up. Now, don't you be fooled — don't you be fooled by what the General tells you. If you read his speeches in the West, and then read his speeches in the East, then read them in the North and read them in the South, you can't tell what he's for. He's for every- thing and against nothing. A man has to be against something if he is going to be President of the United States. He has also got to be for the people, in the first place. If the Republicans win this election, you will have big business government in Con- gress, and a military man in the White House. You may have government by gen- erals— but the general welfare won't enter into it, and you will be the losers, for sure. There is just one thing for you to do, and that is to go out and study the issues — find out what it's all about — inform yourselves. That is all I am asking you to do. That is the reason I am out here talking to you, be- cause I want to call your attention to the fact that you ought to know what is going on. And if you listen to these Republican ora- tors, you will never find out what they stand for. They are for anything they think can get the votes. But study their record in the Congress. Find out how they voted on these various issues I have just named to you. And then find out where you would be if you had got- ten people in the Congress and in the White House that want to turn the clock back. Now we had a Republican Congress called the 80th Congress, on which I campaigned in 1948. And I want to tell you that if I hadn't been in the White House, standing guard in your interests, they would have succeeded in turning the clock back. And then where would you be? Think about that a little bit. Then use good sense. Use good sense. Vote for the welfare of the free world. Vote for the wel- fare of the greatest Republic in the history of the world. Vote in your own interests. And when you do that, you will send Judge Bard to the Senate, you will send Pat Mc- Gowan to the House of Representatives, and the next President will be Adlai Stevenson — and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [6.] Altoona, Pennsylvania (Rear plat- form, 4:05 p.m.) Well, the last time I was here it was early in the morning, and I was working at that time to get myself elected, if you remember. I came out and talked from this platform at 6 o'clock in the morning, and I was surprised to see that so many people get up as early as I do in this good town. This year I am not seeking anything for myself. I am working for a victory of a new Democratic candidate this fall. You have some fine Democratic candi- dates here in Pennsylvania. You have just met Judge Bard who is the candidate for the Senate and who will make you a good Sena- tor, and Joseph A. Moran, who will make you a good Congressman. I am very anxious that you should send the right sort of people to the Congress. I 922 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 22 [306] have had experience with contrary Con- gresses, and I know what it means to a President to have the right sort of Congress. On the national ticket we have two of the best qualified men any party has ever offered the voters — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Governor Stevenson has a great record in Illinois as its Governor. He is talking about the issues, and telling you where he stands. He is a real friend of the common everyday man, and not a front for the spe- cial interests and for Wall Street. You know, in the past 7 years, under the Democratic Party, the average man has fared better than in any period of American history. Let me give you an example. In 1945, the average straight time hourly rate of railroad employees was about 93 cents. Under an increase effective October 1st, 1952, that income will be about f 1.86 — an increase of exactly 100 percent. It is true that a lot of that raise has been taken up by price in- creases— more than it should have been — and more than it would have been if the Republicans had helped us to keep some decent price controls. But even after ad- justments for price changes, the working- man is a lot better off than he was in 1945. And so far as 1932 is concerned, there is no comparison. And look at the other things workers have gotten, things like social security, rail- road retirement, unemployment compensa- tion, and recognition for the rights of labor. It isn't just workers who have gained in this period. Everyone else, too, has had his share — the farmer, the businessman, and everybody. Now, all these gains did not come by acci- dent. They came because you had a govern- ment that worked for the welfare of the peo- ple. The Republicans have never liked the things we have done to help the people. They fought against most of them — time and again they have fought the things that we wanted for the people. And what have they fought for? Well, a good example of what they fought for is Taft-Hartley. The truth is that the Republican Party does not represent the average man in this country. Indeed, the Republican Party represents the big special interests, the oil lobby, the real estate lobby, the big corporations and the banks, and all the rest of that crew. I saw a poll the other day that said over 90 percent of the bankers were going to vote the Re- publican ticket this year. I think that is a pretty good sign of who the Republican Party is working for. You can't expect their five-star candidate for President to make his party any better. He has endorsed the Republican platform, which is the most reactionary document you ever saw. In fact, up in New England the other day I called it a lousy platform — and that's just what it is. It is the most recent reactionary docu- ment— and the most reactionary that you have seen in 20 years. The Republican candidate for President has urged the reelection to Congress of the worst elements in the Republican Old Guard, men who voted wrong time after time when the welfare of the common man is at stake. The General has contradicted himself on so many issues that you can't tell exactly where he does stand. He meets himself coming back — worse than a train going around Horseshoe Curve. That is a matter for you to think about, and to think about it carefully, for the rea- son that it is your interest that is at stake. I am only out here trying to get you to think — to think for yourself. Study the platforms of these two parties. Study the record of the Republicans in Con- gress. Study the record of the Democrats in Congress, and then after you have done that, consider the welfare of the free world, consider the welfare of this great Nation of yours — the greatest Republic in the history of the world — and then consider your own welfare. If you will do that, I don't have to argue with you. I just want you to do a little think- ing— to think for yourself. If you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 923 [306] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents 4th and Adlai Stevenson will be President of the United States for the next 4 years, and the country and the world will be safe. [7.] Johnstown, Pennsylvania (Near the train station, 5:25 p.m.) I am more than happy to be with you here today. I remember very well that wonder- ful reception you gave me when I was here in 1948. I appreciated that, and I also ap- preciate the way Johnstown voted. I want you to do as well or better for Adlai Steven- son. Won't you do that for me ? I have been going around the country telling the people the facts and the truth about what is at stake in this election. I think it is one of the most important we have had. In fact, I think it is the most im- portant since the Civil War. I have been pointing out the real and the essential dif- ferences between the two parties. The Democratic Party has a heart for the plain everyday people of the country. That is what Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was all about, and that is what Harry Truman's Fair Deal is all about. The Republican Party, on the other hand, is the servant of the big banks, big industry, the real estate lobby, the oil lobby, and the rest of that crew. With them profits come first ahead of the people. And you know the reason you have to be so careful in this election, they have the oil lobby and the real estate lobby and the China lobby and the National Association of Manu- facturers, and the only man in Washington who represents all the people and is elected by all the people and who is the people's lobbyist is the President of the United States. So you will have to be mighty careful who you put in there. These special interests, these special lob- bies, have fought the New Deal and the Fair Deal from the beginning. They are fight- ing still, and they will go back on all the progress we have made if you are foolish enough to give them a chance. That is not what they are telling you now during this campaign, but it is the way they have been voting in the Congress. Of course, there is a whole generation of young people now who do not remember much about what happened to this country the last time the Republicans ran the na- tional government. Well, anybody who can't remember had better ask and find out, because the same thing may happen again if you let them into power this time. There are a lot of people here who know exactly what it was like. I am told that in the Bethlehem plant here at Johnstown, the mills are 8 miles long. I am also told that from 1930 to 1934 no smoke came from even one of the hundreds of stacks in all those miles of mills. Now they will tell you that that just hap- pened. Well, why is it that they have been expanding and growing and have people working at jobs? I will tell you why. It is because we had a change of administration that had a heart for the people. I was told, at that same time, that two- thirds of the homes in Cambria County were up for sale for delinquent taxes 20 years ago. Conditions were just that desperate all over the country, it was not confined to your place in this county, in this city. Now, any time I mention the great depres- sion, the Republicans yell that we are just running against Herbert Hoover. Well, for one thing, they keep bringing him up. It was not our idea. It was not our idea at all. They had him turn up at their Republican Convention, to remind everybody that he was still a power in the Republican Party. We didn't take him there. And for another thing, the Republican record in Congress during all the years since Hoover's time, shows they haven't learned a thing, and probably will act as they did before, and just like he did, if they got in again. They are the people who vote against so- cial security, they vote against housing, they vote against rent controls, they vote against minimum wages. They are the people who voted for Taft-Hartley and for the labor in- 924 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [306] junction in the steel case. They are the people that want to take over the Govern- ment. That is the reason I am going around the country, trying to remind the people to do a little thinking for themselves. And it wasn't 1932 when they did these things. It was 1946, it was 1947, it was 1949, and even 1952. You know, you ought to read the fine print in the Congressional Record and find out how these birds behave when they think you don't know what they are doing, and then you will know what to do. The Re- publicans never have looked after the inter- ests of the common people — and they never will, no matter what their five-star candidate may tell you at election time. It is clear by now that any relation between what he says about the Republican Party and its actual record is just purely coincidental. It isn't necessary to "pour it on." All that is necessary for me to do is to tell you the truth and get you to think a little bit. Signs like that young man is wearing "Give 'em hell, Harry" — I don't have to give 'em hell, it's a lot worse for me to tell the truth on 'em, because they can't stand the truth. Now you people are intelligent. You are a cross-section of this United States of Amer- ica. You are educated. You understand the English language. You understand what words mean when they are put together in a proper way. I want you to read the Demo- cratic platform. The Democratic platform says exactly what the Democratic Party stands for. It says exactly what we have done and what we hope to do. Then I want you to read the Republican platform, and if you can make anything out of it but gobbledegook, I'll pay for lying. It's about the lousiest platform that has ever been presented to this country of intelligent people to expect them to support it. Then they go around and tell you what they are going to do, and how they love you, and they have been for this and that, and what they will do in the future. But I am asking you to read the Repub- lican platform, and read the fine print in the Congressional Record, and see how these birds voted. And then you can't do any- thing else but use your heads. If you do that, you will vote for the welfare of the free world. You will vote for the welfare of the free world. And the greatest Nation in the history of the world is the leader of the free world — that is the United States of America. Then you will vote for the interests of this great country — which is your interest. Then you will look after yourselves. You will remember what happened — you will re- member 1932, and you will also remember that awful "do-nothing good-for-nothing" 80th Congress that I put under the sod in 1948. And if you do that, then my trip around the country has not been in vain. I am try- ing to wake you up to just think — to think in your own interest. And when you do that, on November the 4th you will go to the polls and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House and we will have 4 more years of good government and prosperity. Thank you very much. [8.] Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Hill Dis- trict Police Station, 8 p.m.) I appreciate your coming down here to- night. It is a wonderful, wonderful compli- ment. You know, I have been going around all over this United States, trying to get people in a frame of mind to do some thinking on the responsibilities which this election im- poses upon the people — the everyday people. I have tried — well, anyway, I want you not only to cheer me to show me you like me, I want you to go to the polls and show me that you like me by voting the Democratic ticket on November the 4th. note: In the course of his remarks on October 22 the President referred to Mayor James Hanlon of Scranton, Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, Representative Harry P. O'Neill, Mayor Luther M. KnifTen of Wilkes-Barre, Representative Daniel J. Flood, and Patrick A. McGowan and Joseph A. Moran, Democratic candidates for Repre- sentative, all of Pennsylvania. 55-672—66- -62 925 [307] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents 307 Address at the Syria Mosque in Pittsburgh. October 22, 1952 Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen of Pitts- burgh : In the last 3 weeks I have been back and forth across this country talking to the voters everywhere, from our smallest towns to our biggest cities. Wherever I have gone, I have received the same kind of warm and friendly welcome which I have just received here tonight. I can't tell you how much that means to me. It means a lot, because it shows that the great attempt to misrepresent me and my ad- ministration has not been successful. If the people believed what they read in the one- party press, they would regard me as a sort of horrible monster with horns and a tail. But they don't. They seem to be really friendly. And I think the reason is that they know I have been standing up for their interests, for the interests of the common, everyday man, for the security and the safe- ty of this great country, no matter what it costs. They know, too, that any President who does that is going to be vilified and slandered by the rich men who control the press and the opposition party. Wherever I have gone, I have noticed an- other thing that gives me great satisfaction. The people come out not to whoop and holler, and make a noise, but to listen to what I have to say, and to think about what I have to say. They want to hear a dis- cussion of the issues. They are trying to make up their minds on the basis of the facts. That shows that our people have commonsense and that you can't sell them a presidential candidate the way you sell tooth- paste. I am very glad, tonight, to be able to speak to the Nation, because I want everybody to hear my views on the issues. That should help to correct the deliberately false im- pression that has been created about my part in this campaign. I want you to understand, very clearly, the reasons why I entered this campaign. The first reason is, quite simply, that I want to tell the people about their candidate for President. This year the Democratic Party offers you one of the finest men in American public life — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I am extremely proud that the Democratic Party has found such a man. One distinguished observer said the other day that Adlai Stevenson speaks "in the accents of greatness." That is as true as it can be. Governor Stevenson is a real Amer- ican leader. He has talked straight and clear to the American people. He has shown a deep understanding of the great issues of our day, and a real feeling for the common people of America. I urge all of you to listen to him on the radio and television, to read his speeches, and to get to know him before November the 4th. If you do that, there's no question as to how this election will come out. Adlai Stevenson will win. And, my friends, that means that the peo- ple will win. Now, there is another reason that I have come out in this campaign. I have had every honor that the Democratic Party can bestow upon me. I have gone from precinct to President as a Democrat, and the Presidency is the highest and most honorable office in the history of the world. And I appreciate what the Democratic Party has done for me, and I never expect to run out on them, as some people do when they get all they can out of the party. The next reason for my getting into this campaign is that I do not want to see the American people deceived or tricked into giving up the liberal policies and programs of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. I do not want to see this country bamboozled into switching to reactionary policies that brought 926 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 22 [307] us to disaster once, and will bring us to disaster again. If the American people want to choose a reactionary government, they are entided to do it — to choose whatever they want. But they ought not to be fooled into doing it. They ought not to be fooled by this cam- paign into thinking that there is a new type of leadership at the helm of the Republican Party — or that the Republican Party has changed its basic philosophy since it last con- trolled the national government. The proof lies not in what the Republican leaders say, but in how they vote in Congress on the great issues that affect our country and the peace of the world. The difference between the two parties goes back a long way. In the twenties and the thirties, the Re- publicans were openly and frankly the party of big business. They let the Wall Street speculators and the big financial interests do as they pleased with the economy of this country. When their policies had plunged the coun- try into the blackest depression in its history, the American people turned the Republicans out of office, and they put the Democrats in power, under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Where there had been paralysis, we now got action. Where there had been a cold lack of concern for human misery, we now had a government with a heart, and a feeling for the welfare of the common man. Under the Democratic leadership we have come a long way in the last 20 years. Out of the depths of the Republican de- pression we have built the strongest economy the world has ever known. We have achieved a society of full employment. To- day, virtually every man who wants a job can find a job, and he can find a job at de- cent wages. Labor has been guaranteed the right to organize. The workingman no longer lives in fear of the private detectives and the strike- breakers that once were hired to keep him in his place. We have opened up new opportunities for small business. We have put security into farming, with programs of price support. We have brought the blessings of electricity to the farmer's home. We opened up vast new areas of irrigated land. We have created new industrial communities, by developing the great rivers of this country. While the country and the Democratic Party moved forward, the Republican Party stood still. The Republican Party was fi- nanced and run by men who, doing nicely under the old system, saw no need for changes to benefit the everyday man, the farmer, the worker, and the small business- man. So the Republican Party opposed change. And its opposition steadily became blind and irresponsible. It really became destructive. Because the Republican Party could not adjust itself to the world in which we live, the American people did not give it power. And so it became filled with vindictiveness, with hate for the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party's leaders. It reviled Franklin Roosevelt. And it has abused me shamefully, but you can see it hasn't hurt much. It has refused to recognize the progress that we all know the country has been making. The Republican platforms show you how blind they have been. In 1936, their plat- form said the New Deal measures had put America in peril. In 1940, their platform said the individual had lost his freedom, and that America was a shackled giant. In 1944, their platform said the American economic life had been destroyed. In 1952 — in this very year — the Republican platform says free enterprise has been wrecked, initiative has been deadened, invention discouraged and self-reliance has been weakened. For the last 20 years the Republicans have been living in a world of make-believe. In the Congress, the Old Guard Repub- licans have fought the Wagner Act, they have fought minimum wage laws, they have fought social security, they have fought slum 927 [307] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents clearance, they have fought farm price sup- ports, they have fought electric power devel- opment, they have fought rural electrifica- tion, they have fought reciprocal trade agree- ments, and they have fought all the rest of the proposals of the New Deal and the Fair Deal, which were for the benefit of all the people. Now they wanted none of these things. They called them socialism. They said they would wreck free enterprise. They said the country would go bankrupt. Now, has the Republican Party changed? Take its record in the last 4 years. In this period, a majority of the Republicans in one or both Houses of the Congress voted against price control, voted against rent con- trol, voted against farm price supports at 90 percent of parity, voted against rural tele- phone programs, voted against improve- ments in our social security system, voted against Federal aid for public housing. In the international field, since the death of Senator Vandenberg, their record has been very little better. In 1949, the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted al- most 2 to 1 against the military aid program, including military aid to the Republic of Korea. In 1950, they voted 3 to 1 against point 4. In 1 95 1 and 1952 — this year — a majority of the Republicans in both Houses voted to slash military and economic aid for our allies. In 1949, and again in 1951, the Republican Congressmen voted, almost unanimously, to cripple the reciprocal trade agreements program. That's the way the Republicans have been voting for the last 4 years. And they don't dare discuss their record with you. That record is a record of usually voting against the interests of the people — rarely voting for them. When the Republicans do vote for something, it's likely to be a bill that is anti-somebody and anti-something. They voted with great enthusiasm for the Taft-Hartley antilabor law. And they voted with equal enthusiasm for immigration laws that discriminated against the Greeks, the Italians, and the Poles and people from other countries of eastern and southern Europe. That is the kind of record that has kept the Republican Party out of power for 20 years. It is the kind of record they are still making. It's the kind of record that will keep them out of power for 20 years more. Now, my friends, the Republican Party is trying to hide this record behind the military glamor of a candidate who was never even identified as a Republican until a few months ago. And they are trying to sell their candidate to the American people with a campaign full of circus ballyhoo. But the men who made that record are the men who wrote the Republican platform, and are running the Republican campaign. They still control the Republican Party, and they will control it after the election. I have felt, therefore, that it is my duty, in order that the people may have the facts, to make it clear that the Republican Party is still the party of reaction, no matter what they may say in this campaign and no matter what their candidate may say. Now the liberals in the Republican Party, who had such high hopes for their new can- didate, have been sadly disillusioned. And some of them have the courage to put their country ahead of their party and speak up and tell the truth — like Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon did. Now, my friends, another reason for my campaigning is probably the most impor- tant. At any rate, it weighs most heavily on my mind. Our Nation is engaged in a grave and dangerous struggle for world peace. This struggle has been thrust upon us by one of the most menacing totalitarian powers that free nations have ever faced. It is a strug- gle that is being fought in every part of the world. It is a struggle that free men must wage with their ideas, their material re- sources, and their very lives. On the out- come of this struggle depends not only our national safety, but also the future progress of all civilization. To win we must have both confidence 928 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 22 [307] and patience. This is not a simple fight, like crushing an enemy in battle. To bring on an outright, total war would involve us in disaster. And to give in, or go soft, would mean appeasement of communism. In this struggle, we have made many, many hard decisions. And in order to win, we have devoted large resources to the aid of our allies. We have imposed a heavy defense program on ourselves — requiring the control of materials and prices and the payment of high taxes. We have had to restore the draft, to build up our Armed Forces, to station units overseas, and to send men to hold the tide of aggression in Korea. This has cost us effort, money, and many brave lives. It has also resulted in great gains for us. We have stopped the conquest of Europe, we have halted aggression in Asia. The strength of the free world is growing. The great danger that threatened us a few years ago — the danger of being isolated and surrounded in a Communist world — has been met successfully. But the terrible struggle still goes on. It is still perilous. We can win this thing. There is no ques- tion of that. With our great resources, our skills, our faith in God, we can most assuredly win. But we can also lose. We can lose if we slacken our effort, if we appease the Com- munists, if we cut our defenses, or trim our sails. And that might happen if we grow tired before the goal is won, or turn aside from the race before victory is secure. Everything depends on the vision, the morale, and the determination of the people of this great country. In this campaign now, my friends, I had hoped that neither party would seek to play politics with the sacrifices, with the doubts and the fears, that are necessarily created by this struggle for peace. But that, I am sorry to say, was not to be. The Republicans brought these elements into the campaign. Next, I had hoped that the Republican candidate would rebuke his party, and reject their efforts to weaken our unity and our resolution. I thought that this candidate would cer- tainly hold firm. He was closely identified with our policy of resistance to communism. He had played a great part in it. He knows how difficult it is to build up and maintain a high level of national defense. He knows how hard it is to hold the free nations to- gether, and to get them all to do their best. He knows that everything depends on the determination and the firmness of the United States — the strongest partner. Yet, no sooner had this candidate won the nomination, than he welcomed the Repub- lican isolationists to his councils. He be- gan to follow their tactics — to suggest that our efforts were unnecessary, our sacrifices in vain, and that there is some cheap and easy way out of our peril. He has blamed the Government of this country for the aggression of the Commu- nists. He has blamed the leaders of this country not only for the Korean conflict but for World War II and for World War I. He has listed our action to save Greece and Turkey, and the Berlin airlift, and our de- fense of Korea — not as great achievements, but as calamities. He has intimated that our policies in Europe have been a failure, even though he himself had a leading part in making those policies effective. Now before he became a candidate for political office, he supported our program for building up our military strength. Now he calls it reckless and extravagant and says we can't afford it. He holds out the false promise that we can get all the strength we need for less money. The Republican candidate knows — or he ought to know — that the only right way to pay for the defense program is through taxes. Yet he constantly tries to make political cap- ital out of the high taxes we are paying for defense. All this is the straight isolationist line. While he has admitted that this country had no choice but to go to the defense of 929 [307] Oct. 22 Public Papers of the Presidents Korea, he is willing to make political capital out of the casualty lists. And, finally, he has let the people think that he knows some undisclosed way to bring the Korean fighting to an end. But he does not tell you how. Now I challenged him to let us know what this proposal is. I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I put him in command of the Allied Forces in Europe for their creation and organization. If he knows of any pana- cea by which we can win the Korean war, it is his business to tell me, and not make a political football out of it. But, my friends — but, my friends, there has been no reply on that subject. He hasn't got an answer ! These campaign tactics have one tendency: to weaken our resolution — to endanger the common determination of the people in the struggle for peace. In a time of great inter- national peril like this, such tactics are a threat to our national security. In a lesser man, they might not be so serious. But from the lips of one who has been regarded as a symbol of patriotism and international cooperation, these statements can do terrible harm. They can lead our country into the path of half measures and halfheartedness that means disaster for us and victory for communism. The Republican candidate, with these cheap campaign tactics, was endangering all the work we had done for peace. As President of the United States, I could not and will not tolerate that. I felt that I had to meet this danger. I had to tell the people that the Republican candi- date was making false promises, and play- ing cheap and dangerous politics with the national morale. I am glad to see that in recent days, in his talks in the Eastern States, the Republican candidate has sounded somewhat less like an isolationist. The press reports that in Mas- sachusetts, he referred with approval, to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — whose armies he commanded in Europe. But I do not know whether this change is due to inner conviction, or to a belief on his part that such things will help him get votes in the East. As far as I am concerned, the damage is done. I cannot trust a man who has played this kind of game with the grave issues of our national security. Indeed, I have asked myself again and again how this man could do it. How could he embark on a campaign of false accusa- tions and hypocritical promises ? I have found no satisfactory answer. Per- haps this course of conduct seems consistent with the whole pattern of his campaign. To those who believe they can win an election by using the techniques of an advertising agency — the distribution of confetti, the cheerleaders, the empty slogans — it may seem a little thing to talk one way about our national safety in the West, and to talk an- other way about our national safety in the East. I do not know whether the Republican can- didate is putting on this cynical kind of campaign through ignorance or by design. It may be that he has unwittingly become the tool of unprincipled men who are taking advantage of the fact that he does not un- derstand politics or the art of government. Or it may be that he is knowingly joining in their schemes. In either event, such con- duct could lead us to national disaster if he were elected. A presidential election, my friends, is more than a popularity contest. It is a seri- ous business. It is a serious business in which a nation decides its course. It is an act by which we give one man great power over the future of all of us. We must have a President we can trust. We must have a man who knows what he is doing. We have had only two professional sol- diers in the White House. Both of them were failures. So far, we have never been so unfortunate as to elect a professional sol- dier President at a time of acute national peril. In this year of 1952, we do not have to run 930 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 23 [308] this danger. We do not have to select a man who regards hypocrisy as necessary to politics. We can pick a man who main- tains his principles under fire. We can elect Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Governor Stevenson has made no slick promises to end all our troubles and solve all our problems. He has not shifted his story from audience to audience and State to State. He has been honest in all he has said. He has not lost his principles in the effort to get votes. In Governor Stevenson you have a man of deep conviction, you have a man of courage, of unflinching honesty. You have a leader equal to the difficulties of the times ahead. I know you will elect him President of the United States on November the 4th. note: The President spoke at 8:32 p.m. in the Syria Mosque, Pittsburgh, Pa. In his opening words he referred to John J. Kane, chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Allegheny County, and Mayor David L. Lawrence of Pittsburgh, both of Pennsylvania. Later he referred to Arthur H. Van- denberg, Senator from Michigan, 1928-51, and Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. The address was broadcast nationwide by tele- vision and radio. 308 Rear Platform Remarks in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. October 23, 1952 [1.] Wheeling, West Virginia (Rear platform, 9:35 a.m.) I appreciate being here, I tell you. You know, Senator Kilgore told me that this is the first time a President of the United States ever paid an official visit to Wheeling, West Virginia. But I want to say to you it is by no means the first time a President has been here. Old Andrew Jackson used to put his state-coach on the boat on the Ohio River at Louisville, and he would always unload it here in Wheeling and drive down the Na- tional Road to Washington while he was President, taking exactly 30 days to make that trip. I have made that trip in 2 hours, so you see how much the country has moved up. And that is what is going on all around the world. That is the reason I am out here trying to tell you the facts. It's always a pleasure to me to come to West Virginia because this is a real Demo- cratic State. There is no doubt in my mind about the policies and how you feel toward the policies of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. You have always been for them. The only way the Democratic Party could possibly lose West Virginia would be if you folks did not go to the polls and vote on election day. There is not much time left in this campaign, and I urge you to get together with your friends and neighbors and turn out a big vote so we can preserve the gains we have made in the last 20 years, and go forward to even greater achievements. I urge you to vote for the men who are going to carry on the gallant traditions of the Democratic Party — John Sparkman and Adlai Stevenson. They stand for continu- ing the great programs that have brought prosperity and security to our people. They stand for equal rights for all Americans, and for cooperation with other nations. And I want to say that you voters in West Virginia have a very special responsibility to return Harley Kilgore to the United States Senate. Harley Kilgore stood shoulder-to- shoulder with Franklin Roosevelt. He has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me, in our fight to improve the welfare of the average man. We need more men like Harley Kil- gore in the Senate of the United States, and I wish we had more of them. I think very highly of Harley. He is one of the best men that ever I have been associated with in public life, and that's saying everything I can say about him. 931 [3o8] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents I hope you will send Bob Mollohan as part of a solid Democratic delegation to the House of Representatives. And I hope you will elect Bill Marland as Governor of this great State of West Virginia. In this Ohio Valley, this steel and coal region, labor has made some of the greatest gains in the past 20 years. And it is here that labor has had some of its toughest fights with those who sought to kill the labor movement — those who sought to destroy the organizations that have done so much for the welfare of the workingman. And so this morning, I want to talk to you briefly about the importance to labor of a Democratic victory on November the 4th. In my whistlestop speeches on this cam- paign, I have been pointing out that the Republican candidate's train carries the slogan, "Look ahead, neighbor." I have been saying that the slogan ought to be, "Look out, neighbor." A lot of people did not seem to realize what a return to reac- tionary Republican rule would mean in this country. They did not seem to realize that it meant the difference between going for- ward and going backward, that it means the difference between war and peace. I think people realize these things much better than they did a month ago. They have a better understanding of what is really at stake. That is why a swing to Stevenson has set in all over the country, among voters who have been leaning Republican. And I hope that I have performed some small service in helping to bring that swing about. Among the people who had better look out, if the Republicans win this election, are the working men and women of America. It wasn't so long ago that the big indus- trialists of America had all the power of government on their side in holding down the workingman. The employers could go to the courts and get antilabor injunctions. They could use their labor spies and private armies and strikebreakers to keep the work- ingman in his place. The Democratic Party stopped all that. But all of you should go back, once in a while, and read the reports of the LaFol- lette Subcommittee of the United States Senate that investigated these crimes against labor. We have come so far in 20 years in estab- lishing and guaranteeing the rights of labor, we have almost forgotten about the long and bloody battles labor has had in the past. We can't afford to forget these things. Many employers have discovered that their labor unions are a good thing, and they will support them wholeheartedly. But there are still men who hate labor unions and would like to destroy them. These men still exist, and they exist in great numbers. Now I have no hesitation in telling you where they are politically. They are a powerful group within the Republican Party. You had a taste of their attitude when the Republicans got control in 1947 of the Con- gress. That was the first time they had obtained control of the legislative branch of the Government since 1932. And one of their first thoughts was to put — what they called — put labor in its place. They passed a bitter, vindictive, antilabor act — the Taft-Hartley law — that wiped out much of the gains labor had made under the Wagner Act and stopped the formation of unions in many places. The Taft-Hartley Act can wreck the American labor movement. That's not just my statement. That's a statement from Business Week magazine, which I don't think is on my side in this fight. Here was an employers' magazine explain- ing to its readers how the Taft-Hartley Act could be used against labor. Let me read you a few paragraphs from the article, and I quote: "Given a few million unemployed in America" — now they want unemployment — "Given a few million unemployed in America, given an administration in Wash- ington that was not prolabor — and the Taft- 932 Harry S. Truman, iyp Oct. 23 [308] Hartley Act conceivably could wreck the labor movement. "These are the provisions that could do it:" (I am still reading from this Business Week magazine.) "(1) picketing can be restrained by in- junction; "(2) employers can petition for a collec- tive bargaining election; "(3) strikers can be held ineligible to vote — while the strike replacements cast the only ballots; and "(4) if the outcome of this is a 'no-union' vote, the Government must certify and en- force it. "Any time there is a surplus labor pool from which an employer can hire at least token strike replacements, these four provi- sions, linked together, presumably can destroy a union." Now that is the end of the quote from Business Week. There you have a statement of the way the Taft-Hartley Act can be used to wreck unions. All it takes is a few million unem- ployed and an administration that is anti- labor. And does anybody wonder which party would be for that? I dread to think what would happen to the labor movement if the Republican Party were returned to power. Now you had better look out, neighbor! That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to get in position so they can pulverize the labor unions. Don't think for a minute that the men who wrote the Taft-Hartley Act didn't know what they were doing. That law was the great achievement of the Republican 80th Con- gress, and Senator Taft, its principal author, would be the most powerful man in another Republican Congress. Don't forget that. He would, in fact, be the chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Wel- fare, and in that role the most powerful man in the country on labor matters. I say to you again, my friends, you had better look out, neighbor! You had better look out. Something is coming to you, if you are foolish enough to send the Repub- licans to Washington in charge of the Gov- ernment. Now, if you want to know what the Re- publicans are thinking about the future of labor, you can learn a lot from the Wall Street Journal. On May 26 of this year, it ran a very revealing article. It said, and I quote — now this is from the Wall Street Journal; the Wall Street Journal has never been on the side of the Democrats since it has been running: "If the Republicans hold their own or gain new strength in the House of Representa- tives, it's almost certain that there will be a new effort to crack down on the unions. And if the GOP controls Congress by a com- fortable margin, the effort will probably suc- ceed." That is the end of the quote from the Wall Street Journal. One of the things the Republicans are talking about, according to this article, is to ban industrywide bargaining. That was one of the provisions of the original Hartley bill of 1947. It was dropped out in the final version of the Taft-Hartley law, but it has not been forgotten. That original Hartley bill had a lot of other ingenious antilabor provisions, including additional injunction proceedings against labor, and a prohibition of welfare funds like the one which the coal companies and the United Mine Workers have set up. Now, I can't understand why anybody would want to destroy a great welfare pro- gram like that being carried out in the coal industry. But I can understand why an antilabor union employer would like to pro- hibit industrywide bargaining. That would put labor at a big disadvantage in bargain- ing with powerful employers. The Congressman who made the conclud- ing argument on the floor of the House of Representatives in favor of the Hartley bill — now, listen to this — in 1947 was a young man who showed real promise as a leader in the battle against labor — his name is Nixon, and he is from California. He lived up to that 933 [308] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents promise so well that he was promoted this summer to run for Vice President on the Republican ticket. Now again I say to you, you had better look out, neighbor! Now, the Republican candidate for Presi- dent does not have much of a record on labor questions. But he picked one of the most antilabor men in the Congress to be his running mate. And he said that if he had been President this year he would have tried to get an injunction in the steel case. He would have applied this useless and unfair procedure without regard to the merits of the dispute. Again I say to you, you had better look out, if you get that man in the White House. You can expect some sweet words about labor from the Republican candidates be- tween now and election day. Every 4 years the Republicans tell you how much they love the American labor movement. They whisper sweet nothings. And that's the right term for it — because they have noth- ing in their record to back up their sweet words. Now the Democratic Party is the tried and trusted friend of the working men and wom- en of this country. It is the friend of the people who need help to assure them an even break in dealing with the strong and the powerful. I have been going around this country since September the 27th for the purpose of getting people to think. I am trying to awaken them to their own interests in this campaign. I think this is the most impor- tant presidential election since the Civil War, because your interest is at stake. The in- terest of this great Republic is at stake, and the welfare of the free world is at stake. If you will just read the record and do a little thinking, you can't do but one thing: that is to go to the polls on November the 4th and send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and you will have 4 more years of good government. [2.] Braddock, Pennsylvania (Rear plat- form, 12:08 p.m.) I believe that you have some notion of why I am here. I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in November. I was here in 1944 and spoke from a firetruck up the street here. I was running for Vice President at that time, and you accommo- dated me and made me Vice President — and that got me into a lot of trouble. You have some wonderful Democratic candidates here in Pennsylvania. You have just met Judge Bard, who is the candidate for the Senate, and Mrs. Buchanan is one of the greatest Congresswomen that has ever been to the Congress in Washington. I want you to be sure to send her back. We need Congresswomen like Mrs. Buchanan. I hope you will be sure to vote next No- vember because in my opinion this is a very important election, important to you, im- portant to the country, and important to the whole world. I am sure that you will vote for Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. Governor Stevenson is the most outstanding leader to come along since Franklin Roosevelt. He will look out for your interests just as Roose- velt did, and just as I have tried to do. I have been telling people that there is one big issue in this campaign. The issue is whether you want a government that will work for the welfare of all the plain every- day people of this country, or whether you want a government that will turn the coun- try over to the big financial interests which control the Republican Party. Think of some of the things that have been done for the ordinary people in the 20 years of Democratic administrations. You have got social security, minimum wage laws, protection of the rights of labor, un- employment compensation, housing pro- grams, and a lot of other things too numer- ous to mention at this time. And, then try to think of just one thing 934 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 23 [308] the Republican Party has done to advance your interests. I don't think you will find one little thing. But I believe you know that the Old Guard Republicans have always voted against your interests in Congress just about every time they have had a chance to vote. The Republicans showed you whom they represented when they gave you that terrible Taft-Hartley law, and they are all set to start to work on you again, if they can just gain control of the White House and the Congress on November the 4th. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent thinks that Taft-Hardey Act is a good thing. He has been completely taken over by Senator Taft, and the rest of that reac- tionary crowd who control the Republican Party. Don't you let them fool you with that five- star front man. The real power in the Re- publican Party is still where it always has been, and that is in the big business inter- ests that pay the bills and call the tune for the Republican Party. You have got to do a little thinking for yourselves. The only reason I am going up and down the country explaining what the issues are in this campaign is because you can't find them out, because 90 percent of the press — which represents 81 percent of the reading public — is against the Demo- cratic Party and against your Democratic President. So he has to go out and ride around the country and meet wonderful peo- ple like this and try to get them to do a little thinking for themselves. I wish I had a chance to furnish you with the record of the Republicans in the Con- gress, and the record of the Democrats in the Congress. I have been telling you vari- ous things that they have been for and against as I go around the country. All you need to do is to think a little. Think — think for the welfare of the free world — think for the welfare of the greatest Republic the sun has ever shone on — and then think of your own interests, which are centered in the policies that are produced in Washington. If you do those things, I won't have to per- suade you, because you will vote for the wel- fare of yourselves, you will vote the Demo- cratic ticket on the 4th of November, and we will have a Democratic administration for the next 4 years. Thank you — thank you very much. [3.] McKeesport, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 12:35 P-m0 I appreciate very much this cordial wel- come. I enjoy meeting people, and the rea- son I am out this time is to tell the people what they ought to hear, and not what they want to hear. You have an excellent ticket here in Pennsylvania for the Congress. You have just been listening to Judge Bard. He will make you a great Senator. And I have known Mrs. Buchanan ever since her hus- band came to Washington as Congressman, and she has made a wonderful public serv- ant, and I want you to send her back to Washington, because we need people like that. We have also got a national ticket of which we can be proud, in Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They are two of the best qualified candidates any party ever offered to the country. They really work for your interests. You can trust them all the way. And that is what you need in the White House — and in the man to preside in the Senate. I am taking part in this campaign because I believe this is one of the most important elections we ever held. The choice you make this year may decide whether we have prosperity or depression — peace or war. I want to talk to you a little about this matter of prosperity or depression. I think you should look carefully at the record of the Republican Party, and then decide where your best interests lie. If you look at the Re- publican Party's record, you will see that 935 [308] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents the last time they were in power, we went into a terrible depression and had about 14 million unemployed. The Republicans sat on their hands in 1930, 193 1, and 1932, and they did nothing to get us out of that depres- sion. They didn't even do anything to help relieve the misery of the unemployed. Then, when the Democratic Party took over in 1933, the Republican Party opposed everything Franklin Roosevelt did to pull us out of the hole they left us in. The Repub- licans have fought all the New Deal and Fair Deal measures that have helped our people so much over the past 20 years — things like social security, and minimum wages, the Wagner Act, farm price sup- ports, low-cost housing, utility regulation, and all the rest. And now they are posing behind a front man — their five-star general, who had a won- derful reputation as a general, but he doesn't know any more about politics than a pig does about Sunday. The Republican Party, you see, is very, very fond of generals. They have a five-star general heading the ticket. They have Gen- eral Wedemeyer in their corner. They have got General Clay in their corner, and they have a general here running for the Senate in the great State of Pennsylvania. They are mixed up with General Foods — and General Electric — and all the rest of the generals like that. The only general they haven't got in their corner is general welfare — and he belongs to the Democrats. Now you can't count on a party that has a public record like the Republicans have. You can't trust them to keep up the progress we have made, or bring you security and prosperity in the future. You can't trust them to keep you out of a depression that can be twice as bad as the one they left with us in 1932. They are pro- gressive on the depression business. In 1921 they had 7 million people out of employ- ment. And in 1932 they had 14 million people out of employment. And if you put them back there for another 4 years, they will probably have 28 million out of employ- ment. They let you down every time they have control of the Government. They let you down in that terrible Republican 80th Con- gress, which I had a lot of fun with and put under the sod in 1948. They will let you down again if they win this election. And that goes for all of them, including their five- star candidate for President. He has made his peace with Senator Taft — and I guess you know what that means for you. Now, there is just one thing for you to do, and that is to do a little thinking on your own hook. I am trying to get the people to study the record, study the issues. The Republicans don't want to talk about issues. They don't dare, because their stand on the issues has been against the people. But if you do a little thinking for your- selves, you will go home and pray over this situation — because it is the most serious one we have had to meet since the Civil War. And if you do that, you will vote for the wel- fare of the free world, you will vote for this great Nation, the greatest Republic in the history of the world, and you will vote care- fully in your own interests. And when you do that, we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House for 4 years — and the country will be safe. [4.] CONNELLSVILLE, PENNSYLVANIA (Rear platform, 1 138 p.m.) I appreciate very highly this welcome here in Connellsville. I always think of one man when I come to Fayette County — the man who will be the outstanding figure when the history of this period is written, and that is George C. Marshall. He was a native of this county, and went to V.M.I, from here, and he is one of the greatest leaders this country ever produced. Now I want to tell you why I am here, if you don't know. I am out campaigning for the Democratic victory in November. I am not running for anything myself. I have 936 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 23 [308] had every honor a man could want, and now I am just anxious to see this country in good hands for another 4 years. You know, it is customary when a man has received all the honors he can from a party, to retire as a high-hat and not be will- ing to do his part to keep that party running. I am not that sort of Democrat. I am grate- ful for the honors that have been given me. I believe sincerely in the principles of the Democratic Party. I have worked and fought in the Democratic Party for 40 years. And since they have given me the highest honor that can come to a man, I expect to try to repay as far as I can the honor they have done me by helping the party as long as I live. I hope a lot of other people will get religion like that, too, before this is over. I have been traveling all across this coun- try explaining to the people the basic issues in this campaign. I have been telling them that the Democratic Party is the party of the people. And I believe that. The record proves it. During the last 20 years we have fought the battle of the people against the special interests. The results have been good for this great country, and the country is in better condition today than it ever was before in its history. I have also been telling the people that the men who control the Republican Party are no friends of the plain everyday man. That is proved by the Republican record in Congress. I have been citing chapter and verse out of that record from one end of the country to the other, and I know what I am talking about — because I have been there for the last 18 years, and I know the record. The Republican Party is controlled by the big men, the big lobbies, the special inter- ests that pay the party's bills and call the tune for the Republican Party to dance by. The other day somebody showed me a report which I have right here. It is a most interesting document which tells about a poll among the bank officers on how they are go- ing to vote in the election this year. And how do you think those bankers are going to vote? They are going to vote the Repub- lican ticket 12 to 1. I think that ought to give you a pretty good idea of who the Re- publicans work for. Now there is something else in that report I think you should know about. These bankers are all for the Republicans, but a lot of them think the Democrats will win. One of them explained the reason for that. He said, and I quote what he said — this is what the banker said, and he thinks the Democrats are going to win, in spite of the bankers voting for the Republicans: "Life has been too easy and comfortable for a large segment of the nonthinking electorate, and they do not want a change." Well, there you are. This banker says life has been too easy for the most of us. And he is upset because the most of us want life to continue easy and comfortable for us. He wishes we were less comfortable and would vote more Republican. But I guess we are going to vote the Democratic ticket just the same. I can see why this would make a banker feel very badly, but he oughtn't to claim that the people who don't want a change are non thinkers. I believe the Democrats think just as much as the bankers and the Republicans — and I think they think a lot straighter. After all, it was the thinking of the bank- ers and their friends that got us into the Great Depression. I hope you will think it over. Think like those bankers never thought you could, and you will know where your best interests lie. Think of your own interests. Think of what helps you, and what helps the whole coun- try. Think what party has always worked for the welfare of this great country. Study the record of the two parties. The reason I am going up and down the country as I am is because I want to persuade people to think for themselves. If they do that, I don't have to worry about what the result is going to be. I know how you will decide. You will go to the polls on Novem- ber the 4th, and you will vote the Democratic 937 [308] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents ticket, and that is the only sensible thing you can do. You will vote to send Judge Bard to the Senate, and Tom Morgan back to the House of Representatives. They will represent you and not the bankers and the special interests. And you will make Adlai Stevenson the next President of the United States, and we will have 4 more years of prosperity and good government. [5.] Rockwood, Pennsylvania (Rear plat- form, 2:52 p.m.) I appreciate very much this wonderful welcome. You know, I have been pleas- antly received all the way across this great State. I always think, well maybe the next time there will be nobody there, and when I get there why everybody in the place is there. I understand there are three times as many people here as live in this town. That cer- tainly is a compliment. I guess you are acquainted with the fact that I am out doing a little campaigning for the Democratic ticket. I am telling you that now, in case you didn't know it. You have some fine candidates here in this great State of Pennsylvania. Your candi- date for the Senate, Judge Guy Bard, is a wonderful man. He has made a great judge, and he will make you a great Senator, and I am glad to say a good word for him. I hope you will send Philip Shoemaker to the Congress. I understand he has got the shoestring district in Pennsylvania that is a hundred miles long and a mile wide. I hope you will elect him just on that account. Our national ticket has two of the finest candidates any party ever offered the people. Governor Stevenson of Illinois has an out- standing record of public service, and I know he will make you a great President. I hope you have been following his speeches because he is telling you just where he stands on all the great issues that are before the country. He doesn't talk one way in Pennsylvania, another way in Michigan, another way in California. He tells you straight out what he believes. And he is a man you can trust. And Senator Sparkman will be an excel- lent Vice President. He has been working for years in the interests of the farmer, the small businessman, and the rest of the plain everyday people of the country. The Republican candidate for President has been a great general, but I think he has made it clear that 40 years in the Army doesn't give the background needed for the Presidency. Two of our former Presidents were professional soldiers and great gen- erals, but they were not able to handle the presidential job. They failed badly, and the whole country suffered as a result. You know, the office of the President is the greatest office in the history of the world. It is the greatest and most powerful office in the history of the world. And it is a public relations office. The President spends most of his time trying to persuade people to do what they ought to do without being per- suaded. Now a military man has been in the habit of saying to the soldiers, "You do this," and if they don't do it they get court- martialed. Well, the President hasn't got any chance to court-martial anybody, he is trying to make the Government run, and you must bear that in mind when you elect a President. And the people are at fault when they don't get the right people for the place. It is your business to inform yourselves on what the issues are, and then you can vote intel- ligently— and you will always get good government. Now that is what I want to impress upon you, that you yourselves are the Govern- ment. And it is your duty to study the issues carefully. Study the record of the two parties. Think which one has done the most to serve your interests, and consider whether you need a professional military man for President, or an able and expe- rienced civilian leader who knows how to make the government machine work in this free Republic of ours. All I want you to do is just to study the 938 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 23 [308] issues. Consider your own interests. Con- sider the welfare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. When you do that, you can't do but one thing. You will go to the polls on November the 4th, and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [6.] Myersdale, Pennsylvania (Rear platform, 3:20 p.m.) I have had a most pleasant trip in Penn- sylvania and West Virginia and New Jersey, the last 2 or 3 days, and I have been highly pleased at the attention that the people have given to the causes I have been putting up to them. I have been trying to get them to think about what is at stake in this election, and they seem to be highly interested. And now, before we get into the program, and before I really start, I want to tell you that Margie had to go to New York today and she isn't with me, but she will come back here some day. I guess you know by this time that I am doing everything I can to help elect the Democratic ticket, nationally and locally. You have some wonderful candidates on the Pennsylvania Democratic ticket. In Judge Bard you have a man who will really make you a Senator. They tell me that Phil Shoe- maker will make a wonderful Congressman, and I hope that when you go to the polls you will elect them both. I have got another interest in this cam- paign also. I want you to vote for Adlai Stevenson for President, and John Sparkman for Vice President, and the country will be in good shape. Adlai Stevenson has an outstanding record as Governor of Illinois, and I think that is about the best training a man can get for the Presidency. Governor Stevenson was drafted by the Democratic National Conven- tion in Chicago, as you remember, and he doesn't owe anything to anyone. He is a man of great integrity and courage, and I am sure he will make you a great President. And Senator Sparkman's record is just as good. He has been working for years for the farmer, the small businessman, and all the rest of the everyday people in the coun- try. These are men you can trust. Now, my friends, this is a most important election, and I believe you should think over very carefully the issues in this campaign. The Republicans don't want to talk about issues. That is one of the reasons I am out- I have been going around the country telling the people just exactly what the issues are, and asking them to do a little thinking on their own account. You have got to do that because — as I said before, time and again today, and all along since I have been out — I think this is one of the most important campaigns since the Civil War. Everything, nearly, is at stake in this campaign. You must yourselves do a lot of thinking. I wish you would study the issues. I wish you would study the record of the Republi- cans in the Congress. That is where you can find out what would happen if they get control of the Government. The record is what counts, not what they tell you in a cam- paign. The Democratic record should be studied also, and then you ought to make up your mind what you think is best for this great country of ours, what you think is best for the free world. Then, when you get down to brass tacks, you ought to think about your own inter- ests. And if you do that, you can't do but one thing on November the 4th. You will just have to vote the Democratic ticket and we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House for 4 years, and we will have 4 years of good government. Thank you very much. [7.] Cumberland, Maryland (Rear plat- form, 4:25 p.m.) I have been through Cumberland many a time on various errands. I was here when I was a candidate for Vice President, and I was here in 1948. Those times I was asking for 939 [3o8] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents something for myself. I am back here not running for office this time, but asking you to do something for somebody else. I'm glad to have this opportunity to say some things which I think will be of special interest to the people of the great State of Maryland. The Free State of Maryland belongs in the Democratic column in this election, and it's up to you folks to put it there. The Democratic candidate for President this year is one of the best qualified men ever nominated by either party for that of- fice. I hope that all of you are planning to vote, and to get your friends to vote, for Adlai Stevenson. [At this point someone shouted, "We want I\e\"\ Well, you are welcome to him, but if you get him, you'll be sorry ! When you vote for Governor Stevenson for President you ought to vote to give him a Congress that will support him and work with him. The way to do that is to send George Mahoney to the United States Senate, and Mrs. Stella Werner to the House of Rep- resentatives. You can be sure that they will work for your interest and for your welfare — and not for the special privilege groups that control the Republican Party. Maryland has a great tradition in tolerance and freedom — freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of elections. All these basic guarantees add up to a free gov- ernment of free men. Today, freedom of thought and freedom of speech are under attack in our country. They are being attacked by the planned and deliberate use of lies, slanders, and fear. A little group of people are using these weap- ons, on a wide scale, in an attempt to attain public office. They want to make it dan- gerous for anyone to express opinions dif- ferent from their own. They try to destroy the reputation of any man in public or pri- vate life who dares to stand up and oppose them. These methods endanger our free- dom and our personal lives as citizens. You've had a good example right here in your own State of how these political gang- sters operate. In 1950 they tried their methods out in your State. Today these same methods have been adopted by one of our major political parties as its campaign strategy. Let us look at what happened here in Maryland just 2 years ago. Some carpetbag politicians, who had nothing but contempt for our democratic traditions, came into this great State. They were led by elements from the po- litical underworld, including an unscrupu- lous and power-hungry Chicago newspaper publisher. They had plenty of money from the special interest lobbies. They violated your State laws. Their de- liberate purpose was to pervert your free elec- tion by the sheer weight of money and false propaganda. Their tools were misrepre- sentation, defamation, and just outright fakery. I know that many thousands of good peo- ple in Maryland were shocked and indignant when they learned the full story of that campaign. You convicted one of their members of that conspiracy for violating your State election laws. It's too bad that you weren't able to do anything about some of the others, who operated from Washing- ton and Chicago. After the 1950 elections the nature of this Republican campaign was thoroughly ex- posed, and I hope that people everywhere in the country are on their guard now. Five Members of the United States Sen- ate— three Democrats and two Republicans — conducted a careful and painstaking investi- gation of the 1950 Republican senatorial campaign in this State. I'm not going to take time to recount all the details of that investigation and what it revealed about the concealment of funds that came in from outside the State, the use of that fake photograph, and all the rest of the Republican skulduggery. But I do want to remind you that the whole Republican 940 Harry S. Truman, ig 52 Oct. 23 [308] campaign was based on an attempt to smear their opposition with false charges of communism. And I do want to read to you just a few things from the unanimous report of that committee — and remember that two Repub- licans joined three Democrats in that report. They said that there were really two parts to that Republican campaign, and here's how they described them, and I am quoting now from the report: "One was the dignified 'front street' cam- paign" conducted by the Republican candi- date on his speaking tours. "The other was the despicable 'back street' type of campaign, which usually, if exposed in time, backfires. The 'back street' campaign conducted by non-Maryland outsiders was of a form and pattern designed to undermine and destroy the public faith and confidence in the basic American loyalty of a well-known figure." This was the Senate committee talking about the Republican campaign in Mary- land in 1950. The investigating committee of five Sen- ators, including two Republicans, also said that this "back street" campaign involved "publicity efforts aimed at damaging the reputation and at creating and exploiting doubts about the loyalty to his country of the opposing candidate." That is the end of the quotation. They said the Republican campaign "dis- regarded simple decency and common honesty." And then the committee added this: "Such campaign methods and tactics are destroying our system of free elections and undermine the very foundations of our free Government." That is the end of the quo- tation from the committee. Now, my friends, that is a bipartisan state- ment describing what was done in this State in 1950. The national leadership of the Republican Party never repudiated what was done in that campaign. On the contrary, they adopted it for use on a national scale this year. But with a difference. This year the "back street" campaign is being put on in the "front street." Senator McCarthy, who was the ring- leader of the dirty "back street" campaign in Maryland in 1950, has been welcomed as a colleague on the campaign train of the Re- publican candidate for President. He is openly campaigning around the country, on radio and television, for the Republican ticket. And his special tactics of the big lie and the big doubt are also being used by other and more eminent men. In speech after speech, the Republican candidate for President has been using a fancy version of the big doubt technique the Republicans used here in Maryland in 1950. And the Republican candidate for Vice President — the second highest office in the land — is engaged in nothing less than a false campaign of personal slander and innuendo against the honored and respected public servant who heads the Democratic ticket. That's how desperate the Republican Party is, that's how unprincipled its leader- ship has become from taking its own poison. Now, I hope and I believe that you people here in Maryland — and the people every- where in the country — will see what this Re- publican campaign is, before the election, and not afterwards, when it would be too late. We are moving into the closing days of the campaign. I don't know what sort of composite pictures or other frauds they're going to try to put off on you this year. But I'm sure they will try something because the same kind of people are helping to run the Republican campaign this year that ran the "back street" campaign in Maryland in 1950. So, look out, and don't be fooled by them. The decision that the American people have to make when they go to the polls 12 days from now may be the most important decision they will make in their lifetime. 941 [308] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents Think carefully about it. The future of your children and the future generations de- pends on your making a decision that will preserve them and for them the freedoms and liberties that we ourselves have inherited. Don't you entrust our Bill of Rights to the "back street" campaigners, or to the party that welcomes and solicits that sort of support. The Republican Party should be so thor- oughly repudiated that the un-American tactics they are using this year will never again appear in an election in these free United States of ours. The way to do that, my friends, is to roll up an overwhelming majority for the Demo- cratic ticket. Vote for the men and women with character and with courage to stand up for your basic liberties. Governor Stevenson has had a great deal of experience in civilian government. He understands that our Government is not a military organization, but a cooperative effort of free men. Adlai Stevenson is a man you can trust with the future of America. In this election campaign he has shown his unswerving ad- herence to principle and his deep devotion to our form of government. My friends, we need a man in the White House who has courage. We need a man who has principle. We need a man who has the same principles in California that he has in New York, the same principles in Michi- gan that he has in Louisiana, the same prin- ciples in Maryland that he has in Virginia. That is not the case with the Republican candidate. He has had a different set of principles for each State in the Union. He even made a speech in New Jersey in the afternoon and went over into New York and repudiated it that night. Now, a man like that can't run the Government of the United States. And I haven't anything personally against him. I think he is a great general. I made him Chief of Staff of the United States Army. I put him in command of the Allied military forces in Europe. And I have every confidence in him as a military man. But, my friends, he doesn't know the first princi- ples of politics. Under our system, politics is government. Politics is government. Politics is a public relations program for the welfare and benefit of all the people, and not just a few. I am out on this campaign for the simple reason that I want you to do some thinking for yourselves. I am anxious that you study the issues that are before the country. The Republicans won't talk to you about issues. I have been talking to the people all over the country about issues, and they have awak- ened to the fact that there are issues in this campaign, and that the Bill of Rights itself is at stake. Now, go to the polls on the 4th of Novem- ber and vote for your own interests, and send Adlai Stevenson there for 4 years. [8.] Harpers Ferry, West Virginia (Rear platform, 6:32 p.m.) I appreciate very much your coming out here to see me at this time of night. I have always been interested in Harpers Ferry — one of our famous towns in history. A great many things have happened here. And there is also another thing in connection with it — in these modern times it's good Demo- cratic country, and I am always glad to visit with good Democrats. I have just been doing a little political work through Delaware and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and West Virginia and Mary- land. I have met and talked to a lot of peo- ple on this trip, and they have been very friendly; and you would be surprised how much interest they display in this campaign. There isn't any doubt in my mind but that we are going to have a Democratic victory, just as we did in 1948. You are very fortunate in having out- standing candidates on the Democratic ticket in West Virginia. I have known Harley Kilgore ever since he came to the Senate. He is an able, distinguished representative for the great State of West Virginia, and I 942 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 23 [308] know you are going to send him back. He is my good friend, and I am very fond of him. You have Harley Staggers, who is a candi- date for Congress. He has been doing a good job for you down in Washington. For Governor you have William Marland, and he is a fine and able young man. He will give your State good government. These men are all good men. Now I wouldn't be spending all this time and effort traveling around the country if I didn't think a Democratic victory in this election was necessary for the welfare of this great coun- try. The country needs the kind of leader- ship that it will get from Adlai Stevenson. Governor Stevenson has been talking sense to the American people, just as he promised to do when he was drafted for the nomina- tion last July. He has been telling you frankly and honestly where he stands on every issue. And he has been talking the same way in the North and South, in the East and West. He doesn't have one set of issues for one part of the country, and an- other set for another part. He is the same all the time. He is for the Democratic plat- form— which is the best platform that has come out in I don't know when. Now I know the Republicans have said he is talking over the heads of the people, but that just goes to show you what a low opinion the Republicans have of the every- day man. Governor Stevenson knows you have heads and can think — and he is giving you something to think about. I hope you are listening to Stevenson's speeches. If not, you had better look up the time in your paper, and sit down and listen every night he is on the air. You will find it's a good way to learn what the issues are in this campaign. Listen to Governor Stevenson, and then listen to the stream of generalities and wild charges from the Republican candidate. Look up the platforms of the two parties, and read them carefully. You will find the Democratic platform is the best and most specific and most progressive program ever adopted by either party. You will find the Republican platform is the worst collection of doubletalk and weasel words that the Republicans have scraped together since 1932. Now study the records of the two parties in the Congress. Then you can find out what they will do when they are in power. That is what counts. Look how they vote. You will find a ma- jority of Democrats are always voting in your interests, and most of the Republicans are voting against your interests. If you will do these things, and inform yourselves, that is all I ask of you. You owe it to yourselves. You are the Government. You should vote for what helps the country and what helps you. Go home and think about the candidates — think about the issues. Inform yourselves on what the issues are. Then inform your- selves on the records of the Republicans in the Congress, and the Democrats in the Congress. And then I am sure that when November the 4th rolls around, you will vote for the best interests of the free world, the best in- terests of the greatest Nation in the history of the world, and your own best interests. And if you do that, you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. Thank you very much. [9.] Washington, D.C. (Rear platform, Union Station, 7:55 p.m.) Mr. Commissioner: I appreciate this reception very highly. I didn't expect it — until I heard at Harpers Ferry that there was going to be some kind of a shindig down here. I am always happy to go to a party — par- ticularly when it is for me. I have been going up and down the country trying to get the people to think a little bit. I have been literally from Maine to California and back, and I find that there is tremendous interest in this campaign. It 943 [308] Oct. 23 Public Papers of the Presidents is necessary that there would be an immense amount of interest in this campaign, because it is a vitally important one — I think the most important one we have had since the Civil War, because it is the division point as to whether we are going to go forward, or whether we are going to let these folks turn the clock back. Now I have myself stuck to the issues. Once in a while I polished a little brass, but it needed polishing. This is not anything to be funny about. It is too serious. I hope — I hope every single one of you here in the District of Columbia will inform yourselves completely and thoroughly on what this campaign means, and what it stands for. And then every single one of you see to it that you vote your absentee ballot in the right way, and get word to your home folks that they must themselves go to the polls. It doesn't do any good for a Democrat to be on the record books, or registered, unless he is willing to do his part. Now I find everywhere in these United States the most intense interest in what is going on. I was met at Grand Central Sta- tion in New York by somewhere in the neighborhood of 35,000 to 40,000 people. I never saw anything like it. I have got a wonderful Secret Service man who said he was raised in New York and he hadn't seen anything until then — and he thought he had. Every place we have been, in the cities in New Jersey, in the cities in West Virginia, in the cities in California, and North Dakota, and Montana — any State you want to name — even old Missouri — turned out like a house afire when I was there. They are interested in the campaign. They want to hear what the issues are. And they can't find out what the issues are by reading the present press setup. They are against us 100 percent, and they try to make it appear that everything we do is wrong. It is all right for the other side to call me a liar and a traitor — and there's nothing wrong with that, if you will read the press, but when I nail down a few lies on the other side, why that's something awful. Well, I have been called everything — I have had as much abuse, I reckon, as any other President; but they haven't hurt me yet, and I'm not through, I want to tell you, until the 4th day of November. note: In the course of his remarks on October 23 the President referred to Senator Harley M. Kilgore, Robert H. Mollohan, Democratic candidate for Rep- resentative, and William C. Marland, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of West Virginia. He also referred to Judge Guy K. Bard, Democratic candidate for Senator, Representative Vera Bu- chanan, her husband Frank Buchanan, Representa- tive in 1946-51, Representative Thomas E. Morgan, and Philip R. Shoemaker, Democratic candidate for Representative, all of Pennsylvania, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, Margaret Truman, George F. Mahoney, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Mrs. Stella B. Werner, Democratic candidate for Representative, both of Maryland, Representative Harley O. Staggers of West Virginia, and F. Joseph Donohue, Commissioner of the District of Columbia. 309 Letter in Observance of the 34th Anniversary of the Independence of Czechoslovakia. October 25, 1952 [Released October 25, 1952. Dated October 24, 1952] Dear Dr. Zen\l: You have asked on behalf of the Council of Free Czechoslovakia that October twenty- eighth of this year, the traditional Inde- pendence Day of Czechoslovakia, be re- membered with words of encouragement to the suffering millions in your homeland who are faithful disciples of democracy. The American Government and people note that this thirty-fourth anniversary of independence, formerly a national holiday, will pass unrecognized by the Government of Czechoslovakia for the first time since the Republic's founding. Even before such a departure the communists sought to sub- vert the day's meaning by attributing the 944 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 27 [310] success of the Czechoslovak independence movement of 191 8 to the Soviet October Revolution of the preceding year. This patent deceit, so typical of the communist falsification of history, could not have im- pressed the great majority of the people of Czechoslovakia who are fully conscious of the close collaboration of Woodrow Wilson and Thomas G. Masaryk, the founder of the Republic, and the role played by the Allied Powers in its establishment. The dark night of communist enslave- ment, bringing the loss of freedom, civil rights and human dignity, the corruption of the cultural heritage of the Czechs and Slovaks, and the repression of religious life, now unhappily covers your land. Yet this anniversary continues to symbolize the his- toric devotion of the people of Czecho- slovakia to democratic and humanist ideals and the mutual bonds of friendship between them and the people of the United States. The twenty-eighth of October this year will be revered, however silendy, by the forces of democracy inside Czechoslovakia who look forward to the day when their free institutions will be restored and the night- mare of communist dictatorship and ex- ploitation be lifted from their land. Outside, in the free world, this day will be commemorated with even more mean- ing than in the past, not only for its historic importance, but in token of the deep con- cern and sympathy with which the Govern- ment and people of the United States and all free countries look upon the present plight of the people of Czechoslovakia. With other nations we are now in the midst of a great effort to build the common strength of all in the face of the Soviet menace. We are seeing to it that the people of Czecho- slovakia are made aware of this joint effort and purpose, so that they may take heart and remain firm in these trying times, assured that the cause of truth and freedom will prevail. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Dr. Petr Zenkl, President, Executive Committee, Council of Free Czechoslovakia, 2051 Park Road, N.W., Washington, D.C.] 310 Statement by the President on the Decision To Withdraw U.S. Forces From Korea, 1947-1949. October 27, 1952 LAST FRIDAY night in Detroit, the Re- publican candidate for President made a speech discussing the decision to withdraw United States occupation forces from Korea in 1949. That speech contained so many misquotations or quotations out of context that it was clearly an attempt to deceive the American people. Among other things the candidate sought to create the impression that this decision was made over the objections of the profes- sional military men of the United States. This is not true. The professional military men of the United States recommended the decision. General Eisenhower himself was one of the men who recommended the deci- sion which he now so bitterly criticizes. Here are the facts: 1. The text of the Detroit speech of the Republican candidate for President contains the following statement : '"The terrible record of these years reaches its dramatic climax in a series of unforget- table scenes on Capitol Hill in June of 1949. By then the decision to complete withdrawal of American forces from Korea — despite menacing signs from the North — had been drawn up by the Department of State. The decision included the intention to ask Con- gress for aid to Korea to compensate for the withdrawal of American forces." This statement is a combination of false- hood and truth so interwoven as to create a completely false impression. It is an attempt to blame the Department of State for a policy urged by the Department 945 [310] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents of the Army, a policy which General Eisen- hower himself supported. The withdrawal of American Forces from Korea was proposed in May 1947 by Secre- tary of War Robert Patterson, a Republican ( Forres tal, Diary, p. 273). In September of 1947, the State Depart- ment requested the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the maintenance of United States troops in South Korea. In its re- quest, the Department of State pointed out that a stalemate had been reached with the Soviet Union over Korea, and stated that consideration was being given to what fur- ther steps should be taken to implement United States policy in Korea. In order that such consideration might include the basic elements, the Department of State re- quested, as a matter of urgency, the views of the Joint Chiefs regarding the interest of the United States in the military occupation of South Korea from the point of view of the military security of the United States. The reply of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was transmitted by the Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, in a memorandum which he sent to Secretary of State George Mar- shall on September 26, 1947. In this reply the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that the United States had litde strategic interest in maintaining our troops and bases in Korea. The reply of the Joint Chiefs went on to ex- plain that our limited military manpower could be better used elsewhere, and that the withdrawal of our forces from Korea would not injure the military position of the Far East Command unless, as a result, South Korea were used by the Soviets to build up strength for a major offensive against Japan. They pointed to the current situation in Korea, to the possibility of violent disorder there, and said our troops might be in an untenable position if trouble broke out. Taking all the factors together, the Joint Chiefs recommended withdrawal. At the time this recommendation was made, the Republican candidate was Chief of Staff of the Army. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was responsible for 946 this recommendation. The State Department proceeded with its efforts to establish a united and stable Korea. With the advice of the Joint Chiefs in hand, it felt it could propose the termination of the military occupation by both sides. Accord- ingly, it proposed to the United Nations in October 1947, that elections be held in Korea looking toward the establishment of a united Korea and the withdrawal of all forces. The General Assembly adopted the resolution October 14, 1947. The United Nations en- deavored to hold elections in all Korea but was rebuffed in North Korea and therefore held elections in South Korea only, and the Republic of Korea was established. The United States again went to the United Na- tions in the fall of 1948 and asked it to recog- nize the new government of South Korea and to call for the withdrawal of Soviet and the United States troops. Mr. John Foster Dulles handled this proposal in the United Nations. It was adopted by the United Na- tions in December 1948. During 1948, the United States forces in Korea were reduced from about 40,000 to about 7,500 by withdrawal. During this period, the State Department requested the Department of Defense to hold up further withdrawals of our troops, pend- ing United Nations action and further ex- amination of the Korean problem. Accordingly, after the adoption of the United Nations resolution and after the with- drawal of Soviet forces in December 1948, a new study was made of all the aspects of the Korean problem, including the withdrawal of the remaining United States forces. It was decided in March 1949 to make the with- drawal not later than June 30, 1949, and to ask Congress to authorize a substantial pro- gram of economic and military assistance for Korea. This decision was not arrived at, as the Republican candidate has alleged, by the State Department alone. On the contrary, the State Department was reluctant to agree unless it was clear that the armed forces of the Republic of Korea would be adequately Harry S. Truman, igp Oct. 27 [310] equipped by the time of withdrawal. The military gave assurances on this point, but urged that withdrawal take place not later than June 30, 1949, regardless of other fac- tors. The President after long and careful consideration accepted the advice of the military. The decision was finally agreed on in the National Security. Council and approved by the President with the full advice and con- currence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Security Council did not make this decision until the advice of Gen- eral Mac Arthur had been obtained. His advice was to the effect that the state of training and combat readiness of the South Korean forces was such as to warrant com- pleting the withdrawal of United States forces. When General MacArthur was testifying before the Joint Armed Forces and Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate in 1951, he was frank to confirm the fact that he had concurred in the withdrawal. The position of the professional military men was made plain before the House Com- mittee on Foreign Affairs on June 21, 1949, during the hearings on the Korean aid legis- lation which had been introduced that year. In those hearings the following questions and answers appear: "Mr. Richards. I just want to ask one question: Is it your position, General, taking into consideration world conditions as they are, taking into consideration po- tential enemies of the United States, but leaving out political considerations and matters of policy, that it would not be wise to keep troops in Korea? In short, that is your position ? "General Timberman (representing the Chief of Staff of the Army). Yes, sir; it would not be wise. "Mr. Richards. That is all. "General Timberman. I would ask these other gentlemen. "Admiral Wooldridge (representing the Chief of Naval Operations). I concur. "General Hamilton (representing the Chief of Staff of the Air Force). I concur fully and that has been the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It has been unani- mous. There has been no difference as far as I know." # # * * # "Mrs. Douglas. I would like to ask the representatives of the Joint Chiefs of Staff this question: Do I understand correctly that the Chiefs of Staff advise the withdrawal of troops from Korea at this time? "General Hamilton. That is correct. "Admiral Wooldridge. That is correct. "General Timberman. That is correct." (Hearings on H. R. 5330, pp. 177, 178.) It is clear that the decision to withdraw the troops was made with the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which was accepted by the President. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the Chief of Staff of the Army when the Joint Chiefs of Staff first recommended the withdrawal of troops from Korea in 1947 and the position of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was the same in June 1949. I do not say that the decision to with- draw the troops was wrong. It was made with knowledge of the facts and of the risks and dangers involved. But I do say that if it was wrong, then General Eisen- hower's advice was wrong. This past rec- ord offers little basis for the claim that he could bring about a settlement of the Korean conflict now. I say, too, that his effort to shift responsi- bility to the Department of State for a rec- ommendation which was his originally, is thoroughly dishonest. 2. The text of the Republican candidate's speech includes the following passage con- cerning hearings before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, in June 1949: "Republican Congressman John Lodge of Connecticut asked '(d°) you feel that the Korean Government is able to fill the vacuum caused by the withdrawal of the occupation forces?' "The administration answered, 'Defi- nitely.' " 947 [310] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents This passage occurs after reference to the fact that the civilian and military witnesses before the House Committee "were headed by the Secretary of State." The clear impli- cation is that the Secretary of State either gave or was responsible for this answer "Definitely" to Representative Lodge. This is not true. The answer was given by a representative of the Army. Here is the full text of the series of questions and answers as they appear at pages 142 and 143 of the House Hearings: "Mr. Lodge. I understood you to say that the Army favored withdrawal from Korea. "General Bolte. Definitely. That is withdrawal only of the tactical units. Not withdrawal from Korea. We still propose the advisory group and the continued assist- ance, but I am speaking only of the with- drawal of the tactical forces, which now has become only a reinforced regimental combat team. "Mr. Lodge. How large an advisory group would you contemplate? "General Bolte. Five hundred officers and men. "Mr. Lodge. You feel that the Korean Government is able to fill the vacuum caused by the withdrawal of the occupation forces ? "General Bolte. Definitely." Maj. Gen. Charles L. Bolte was then Di- rector of the Plans and Operations Division, Department of the Army. General Bolte's superior, at the time he de- livered this testimony, was the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Combat Opera- tions, Lt. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer. 3. In describing the testimony of the ad- ministration before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1949, the Repub- lican candidate, in his speech, makes the following statement: "The Secretary of State was asked if he agreed that the South Koreans alone — and I quote — 'will be able to defend themselves against any attack from the northern half of the country.' To this the Secretary answered briskly: 'We share the same view. Yes, sir.' " This is misleading on several counts. In the first place, this testimony was not given before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in June 1949. It was given be- fore the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee in March 1950. It had no bearing on the withdrawal of our troops from Korea, since all our occupation troops had been with- drawn some 8 months before. In the second place, this testimony was given in support of the administration's re- quest for economic aid to Korea — it was not part of an examination into the military capabilities of the South Koreans. In the third place, this testimony has been misquoted. The full and accurate version of the colloquy in which the Secretary's re- mark appears is as follows: "Senator Smith, N.J.: I would like to ask you this question, Mr. Secretary. As you know, I was in the Far East last fall and got to Korea. Before I got there, when I was in Japan, I discussed this with various persons and there seemed to be a feeling that the Korean situation was difficult on account of the military situation and it might not be possible for them to defend themselves against a possible attack from the north. "When I got to Korea I was entirely con- verted to the Korean program. I was en- tirely satisfied that at least for the present they were in shape to defend themselves against any possible invasion from North Korea. However, of course, they would be in jeopardy if the Chinese Communists at- tacked them, or if Russia got her hand into that situation. But for the present, at least, we were justified even in an expenditure of as large a sum as f 100 million because with the Army we have trained and our military advisers, they probably will be able to defend themselves against any attack from the northern half of the country. "Am I correct in that statement, do you feel? "Secretary Ache son: We share that same view. Yes, sir." 948 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Oct. 27 [310] (Hearings of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 81st Cong., 2d sess., on S. 3101, p. 361.) 4. Going back into the history of our decisions with respect to Korea, the Republi- can candidate in his speech refers to the re- port of Lt. Gen. Albert Wedemeyer, on the situation in the Far East, which was sub- mitted in 1947 before the Joint Chiefs of Staff made their initial recommendation of withdrawal. The Republican candidate quotes the following passage from this report: "The withdrawal of American military forces from Korea would result in the occu- pation of South Korea by either Soviet troops, or as seems more likely, by the Korean military units trained under Soviet auspices in North Korea." The text of the speech continues: "That warning and his entire report were disregarded and suppressed by the adminis- tration." The facts are as follows: General Wedemeyer's report included a general discussion of the alternative policies available to the United States in Korea. A reading of the report shows clearly that the Republican candidate has quoted the above passage entirely out of the context in which General Wedemeyer wrote it. In its context, this passage does not refer to a planned and deliberate withdrawal of our troops. Gen- eral Wedemeyer is describing the conse- quences of a termination of U.S. aid to Korea. This would, in his view, bring about such disorders as to compel the withdrawal of our troops, and would result in the Communist occupation of South Korea. The termination of our aid was one of the alternative policies discussed and rejected in the Wedemeyer report. After taking up other alternatives, General Wedemeyer made some policy recommendations. At the conclusion of the report, he dis- missed the alternative of withdrawing our troops immediately, and the alternative of maintaining them in Korea indefinitely. In- stead, he recommended that our troops be withdrawn concurrendy with those of the Soviet Union. On this point the language of his report is as follows : "It is recommended that United States withdrawal from Korea be based upon agree- ments with the Soviet Union to effect pro- portional withdrawals, with as many guarantees as possible to safeguard Korean freedom and independence." This, in effect, was the policy finally adopted by this Government, and carried out with the approval of the United Nations. General Wedemeyer, in his report, made several other recommendations regarding continued economic and military assistance to Korea. Those recommendations were carried out. Virtually, the only one of his recommendations which was not carried out was that calling for the provision of United States officers for the South Korean con- stabulary. The Wedemeyer report was made public in the MacArthur hearings. The speech of the Republican candidate for President is therefore completely untrue in implying that General Wedemeyer was opposed to an ultimate withdrawal of United States troops, and in stating that the recom- mendations of General Wedemeyer were disregarded. Later on, during the MacArthur hearings, in 195 1, General Wedemeyer was asked by Senator Johnson of Texas whether he had agreed with our decision to withdraw troops from Korea. General Wedemeyer replied, "I did, sir," and added that it had been done for economic reasons, and was "just a ques- tion of not having enough bodies to go around." (Record of Hearings, p. 2327.) 5. The Republican candidate for President refers to a minority report of five Repub- lican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 26, 1949. He quotes passages of this report dealing with the mili- tary preparations of the Communists in North Korea. Several points should be made with ref- erence to those passages in the speech. First, the issue in the June 1949 hearings before the House Committee was not 55-672^66- -63 949 [310] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents whether the United States should or should not withdraw its forces. With the approval of General Eisenhower, that withdrawal, by then, had been all but completed. The issue before the committee was whether the Congress should authorize a program of economic aid to the Republic of Korea, which the administration was re- questing. Such a program had been called for by General Wedemeyer, and its impor- tance had been recognized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It had been considered an essential part of our Korean policy by the National Security Council. Without it, there was no hope for the survival of South Korea. The minority of five Republicans were against this essential help to Korea. Their report was in effect a recommendation that we write off and give up the Republic of Korea. Congressman Judd did not sign this minority report. Three of the five who did, were Congressmen who usually followed the isolationist line. Three of them later voted against giving even military aid to Korea, when they voted against the Mutual Defense Assistance Act. Far from being far-seeing statesmen, as the Republican candidate implies, this minority of five Republicans was working against our policy of resistance to communism in Asia. Their refusal to support economic aid for Korea was in the face of an urgent request made to the Committee by Secretary of State Dean Acheson on June 23, 1949, when he testified that failure to give such aid would send "a shiver of fear all through the Philips- pines, all through southeast Asia, India and all other parts of the Far East." Largely as a consequence of Republican opposition, no Korean aid bill was enacted in 1949. It was more than 6 months later, in February 1950, before a bill providing aid to Korea could be passed over the Republi- can opposition. By that time, of course, the delay had already had damaging effect in Korea. note: See also Items 295 [8], 323. 311 Rear Platform Remarks in Ohio and Indiana. October 27, 1952 [1.] Willard, Ohio (Rear platform, 3:25 p.m.) I am more than happy to be here today. I remember stopping here in 1948, and at that time I talked to you about the B. & O. Railroad and that great old railroad man — Dan Willard. This year I have got a little different pur- pose ahead of me from what it was in 1948. I am not asking anything for myself this time — I am not even running for office. In less than 3 months from now I will be out of a job. I may be back here trying to get one on the railroad. But when I leave the Presidential office I want to see a man in my place who will work his heart out for the plain, everyday people of America — just as Franklin Roosevelt tried to do, and just as I have tried to do. That's why I am here campaigning for the election of Adlai Stevenson. Now this is my last trip in this campaign. I guess it is the last time that I shall have the privilege of speaking to you face to face as your President. I don't want to waste an occasion like this. I want to tell you some- thing as honesdy and seriously as I can. This country of ours is a good country. It is a great country. It is a prosperous coun- try, with a great economic future. It is a brave and generous country, too. We have risen to our responsibilities as leader of the free world. We are doing the hard job that must be done, if peace is to be made secure for us and for our children in the next generation. I am proud as I can be of this great Nation of ours. I am proud of its people, and I am proud of its record of accomplishment — the 950 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 27 [311] gains and progress we have made in the last 20 years while the Democratic Party has run our Government for the welfare and benefit of all the people, not just a few. That is what this election is all about. The Democratic Party believes that govern- ment exists to help serve the people. That is what the New Deal was for. That is what the Fair Deal has been for. I don't want to see this changed. I don't want to see this country turned over to the Republican Party that has proved by its rec- ord that it does not know how to keep the country prosperous. The Republicans led us into the great depression over 20 years ago, and ever since they have been opposing almost everything that the New Deal and Fair Deal have done, to help build prosperity and security for the people. Just this spring a majority of Republican Congressmen voted against the bill that would increase social security benefits, and against firm price supports at 90 percent of parity. That is just a sample of how they have been voting all these years. Frankly, I am afraid of what might hap- pen to our country if the Republican Party, with that kind of record, gets control of the Government in this election. That is why I have come to see you here today. I urge upon you, don't turn the clock back. When you go to the polls next week, there is one thing you must remember. Think of your own interests and the wel- fare of this great country. You are the Gov- ernment. When you vote you are voting for yourselves, you are voting for the welfare of the country, for the welfare of the world. If you do that, I am perfectly sure how this election will come out. Mike DiSalle will go down to the Senate, to fight for you there, just as he fought for you when he was Price Control Director. Judge Steinemann of Sandusky will go to Congress. He will represent you well, as you should be repre- sented. You will reelect your Governor, Frank Lausche, and he will carry on the good work for you here in Ohio that he has done over the last period. And when you do that, you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States, and we can look forward to 4 more years of good government. [2.] Deshler, Ohio (Rear platform, 3:40 p.m.) I have an idea that you have some notion of why I am here. I am out campaigning for Adlai Stevenson and the Democratic ticket. I want to thank that band. That was a good way to play the Missouri Waltz, and I appreciated it. I remember stopping here in 1948 when I was campaigning for myself. I talked to you at that time about the progress we had made in agriculture under the programs and policies of the Democratic Party. I would like to talk to you a little bit about the same subject again today. Most of you know, I think, what the Democratic Party has tried to accomplish in the farm field. We have tried to make farming a good and rewarding way of life. We have aimed at parity between farm prices and farm costs, and we have aimed at parity between farm living and modern city living. That has been the meaning and the pur- pose of our program of farm price supports. It is the purpose of rural electrification, soil conservation, agricultural research, and farm credit and home loans — and all the rest of the Democratic agricultural programs. My friends, these programs have been success- ful. Three-fourths of the farms in this country are owned by the men who work them, compared with a little more than half only 20 years ago. About 9 out of every 10 farms in this country have the blessing of electricity today, as compared with only 1 in 10 less than 20 years ago. Through our system of farm price sup- ports, farmers who grow our basic crops have an assurance that they can count on fair prices. And if we Democrats have our way, 951 [3i i ] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents some reasonable assurance is going to be worked out for the perishables and specialty crops, because that is what we say in our platform — and that is what we mean. Now, you hear a lot of talk from the Re- publicans this year, about how they are for the farmers, and the farmers' friend. I want to give you just a word of advice. That's the line the Republicans always take in the month before the presidential election. But for 3 years and 11 months out of every 4 years, the Republicans in Congress do their level best to hamper and oppose progressive measures that are in favor of the farmer. Remember that just this year a majority of the Republican Congressmen voted against continuing farm price supports on basic com- modities at 90 percent of parity. And time after time they have voted to cripple rural electrification and soil conservation, and our other farm programs. The Republicans have a long record of voting against progress for the plain everyday people of this country. If you want to know what they will do if they get into power, you had better look at their voting record, and not at what they tell you around election time. Go home and think about it. Think about the record. Look at the record. That's all I am asking you to do. The only reason I am out on this trip is because I want you to do a little thinking for yourselves. Then turn on your radios and your television sets and listen to the candidates. Listen to Governor Stevenson. He is tak- ing a stand on every issue, frankly and openly — without fear or favoritism. Listen to him, and then you will know that he is a great leader for our country, and a real friend of yours. He stands on the Democratic platform — the best platform any political party ever offered this country in many a day. Think what that means to you. Do a little praying over it, and then go to the polls and vote for the interests of this great Nation. Vote for your own interests. Vote for the interests of the free world. And if you do that, you will vote to send Mike DiSalle down to the Senate, and Dan Batt to the House. You will vote to keep Governor Lausche as your Governor. And as President of the United States you will vote for the best Governor that Illinois ever had — Adlai Stevenson. Thank you very much. [3.] Garrett, Indiana (Rear platform, 5:45 p.m.) I am glad to be back here in Garrett once more. I appreciate it very much. When I stopped here in 1948 I was trying to get my- self elected President. This time I am not seeking anything for myself. I am out cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket, which I hope you will all vote for on the 4th of November. You have some very good candidates here in Indiana. Governor Schricker is a man of integrity, honor, and real ability. He will make you one of the best United States Senators Indiana ever had. And Howard Morrison is a good man to represent you in the House of Representatives. You know, I went to school with a fellow named Howard Morrison and he and I, and Charlie Ross and a lot of the rest of us started our first high school paper in Independence, and it was called "The Gleam." "Follow the Gleam," that was our motto, and I have been trying to follow it ever since. Our national ticket is about the best the Democratic Party ever offered to the voters — Adlai Stevenson for President and John Sparkman for Vice President. I hope you have been following Governor Stevenson's speeches, because he has been telling you the facts about all the great issues before the country. He has been talking sense to you, just as he promised when he was nominated. He is a man you can trust. He will be on radio and television almost every night this week. I want you to go home and listen to him, and you will know that he is the man we need to lead our country. 952 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 27 [311] Senator Sparkman has been working for the farmer, the wage earner, and the small businessman for years. He is a real friend of the ordinary people, and you can be sure he will continue to fight for your interests when he becomes Vice President. I understand that you manufacture arti- ficial fish bait here in Garrett. I am glad to know that, because I am sure you people know what kind of bait is good — and what kind is not. You see, the Republican Party is producing artificial bait this year. They have turned out a new kind of artificial bait. It's very attractive bait, because it has five shiny stars on it, and the Republicans think a lot of unsuspecting people are going to swallow it whole. Now this is a clever thing the Republicans have put together, and I urge you to look it over very carefully. If you do, I think you will find that new bait has a rusty old hook on it — and the hook hasn't caught anything for 20 years. If you look very, very carefully, you will find there is a string attached to that hook, and if you follow that string, you will come upon a tired old elephant that can just barely stand on its feet. That elephant will be looking back- ward— he always does — and he will probably have his eyes shut, as he usually does. I don't think you should bother the poor old beast — because he will be dreaming about the grand old days back in 1897 when he had a master named William McKinley. By this time you will know that pretty new bait is just the same Old Guard Repub- lican Party in a new disguise. And I think you know what that means. It means the party that is lined up solidly with the big special interests. It means the party that has opposed just about all the great advances we have made in this country in the past 20 years. Now I hope you will study this thing care- fully. Study the issues in this campaign. You won't hear anything about those issues from the Republicans. Think whether you want to go backward with the Republican Party, or whether you want to go forward with the Democratic Party into the greatest age man has ever known. Think which party really has your inter- ests at heart. Consider your own welfare, and above all, consider the welfare of this the greatest Republic in the history of the world. Consider the welfare of the free world. If you do that — and all I am asking you to do is to do a little thinking for yourselves, I am not asking you to do anything but study what is before you. You yourselves are the Government. You the people de- cide on whether this country goes forward, or whether we try to turn the clock back. And if you will just go home and get out the record of the Congressmen and the Senators in the Congress and the Senate, Republicans and Democrats — and see which organization, which party — has been for you, and which party has been for the special interests. If you do that, I don't have to argue with you, because you can't do but one thing: You will go out on November the 4th and you will vote the Democratic ticket. And we will have Adlai Stevenson in the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government — and this country will be safe for another 4 years. I hope you will do that. note: In the course of his remarks on October 27 the President referred to Michael V. DiSalle, Demo- cratic candidate for Senator, Judge George C. Steine- mann, Democratic candidate for Representative, Governor Frank J. Lausche, and Dan Batt, Demo- cratic candidate for Representative, all of Ohio, Governor Henry F. Schricker, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Howard L. Morrison, Democratic candidate for Representative, both from Indiana, and Charles G. Ross, Secretary to the President 1945-50. 953 [312] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents 312 Address at the Municipal Auditorium, Gary, Indiana. October 27, 1952 Mr. Mayor, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I am more than happy to be here tonight, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate that cordial welcome which you have just given me. I remember very well how well you treated me when I was here in 1948, and I also remember how well you treated me on election day — and I appreciate it more than I can tell you. Now, I came out here to try to persuade you to do even better for Adlai Stevenson on the 4th. You see, I am not a candidate. I have to tell people that, because my wife came out on the stage the other day, after a demonstration like this — well, it was down in Union Station in Washington — and she said, "Have I been asleep, and are you run- ning for President?" No, I told her, she hadn't been asleep, and I am not running for President, but I am doing my best to see that we get a Democrat in the White House — where we need one. This year, I am sure you are going to put the whole State of Indiana in the Demo- cratic column where it belongs. It is a privilege for me to urge you to sup- port the fine men who are running for office from this State on the Democratic ticket. You have as the Democratic candidate for Senator a man who has already given you distinguished service as Governor of your State — Governor Schricker. I know that you can count on him to continue his fine work when you send him to the United States Senate. Once again you have a chance to vote for a man who has been a real fighter for your interests in the Congress — my friend, Ray Madden. He always does a good job. He proved that by the way he handled that in- vestigation of the terrible massacre of Katyn Forest. Just this past June the Republicans in the Congress were calling for me to crack down on the steelworkers with an unjustified and useless Taft-Hardey injunction. I wouldn't do it because I thought it was wrong. And Ray Madden was right in there with me fighting against the bitter antilabor attacks of the Republican Old Guard. You can always trust Ray Madden to give you the real representation in Washington that you ought to have. I feel certain that you have a candidate who will serve as your Governor in the great Democratic tradition — John Watkins. He will continue the fine work that you have known under Democratic leadership in your State capitol. Now you folks here in Indiana are well acquainted with the Democratic candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. He has been the chief executive of your neighboring State for the past 4 years. He has made a wonderful record of efficiency, economy, and honesty in running the gov- ernment of the State of Illinois. Before that he had some very valuable ex- perience in the National Government — in the Department of Agriculture, in the Navy Department, in the State Department, and as our representative in the United Nations. The campaign he has conducted as the Democratic candidate for President has given hope and inspiration to our people. He has met every issue courageously, forthrightly, intelligently, and honestly. He hasn't compromised his principles once, and he hasn't sold out to anybody for anything. That's why a lot of people who started off supporting the Republican candidate are going to wind up by voting for Adlai Stevenson. Just as a choice between two men, I know that you people feel as I do that Governor Stevenson is by far the better qualified candi- date for President. But there's something else I want you to bear in mind, and it's just as important. 954 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 27 [312] Remember that when you cast your ballot you are not voting only for a President. You are also voting for a Vice President. That can turn out to be a most important vote. We never know what fate has in store for any one of us. I never expected that I would have to take over from President Roosevelt, who was only 63 when he died. When it comes to the Vice President this time, the Democratic candidate is a liberal, and the Republican candidate is a reaction- ary. It's just as sharp a difference as that, and you can prove it by looking at their votes in Congress. The Democratic candi- date votes for the workingman, and the Re- publican candidate votes against him every- time he has a chance. You will also be voting on election day to determine whether Congress shall be run by the Republican Party or by the Demo- cratic Party. There is a tremendous difference between these two parties, and the ideas of the men who represent them in the Congress. The Democratic Party consists of men who believe deeply in the welfare of the common man — the laborer, the farmer, the small businessman, the homeowner, and the consumer. The whole country knows the story of the Democratic Party — how it lifted us out of the depression in the 1930's — how it brought security to the farm family and security to the city family. The people know how the Democratic Party led the Nation to victory in World War II, and how it is leading the country now to victory in the struggle against communism. So, since you folks know the record of the Democratic Party, I'm going to talk to you mostly tonight about the Republican Party and it's awful record. Now I sincerely hope that every voter really gets to understand the Republican Party by the time he steps into that booth on election day. The Republican Party is the Old Guard, big business party. It plunged this country and the world into the worst depression in history in 1929, and it hasn't changed its basic policies since. Men with liberal ideas have never had a home in the Republican Party. Theodore Roosevelt got out of it, fighting Old Bob LaFollette got out of it, George Norris got out of it. And just last week another great, fighting liberal got out of it — Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon. Now, the Old Guard controls the Repub- licans in Congress with an iron hand. Those Republicans in Congress who really believe in world cooperation and in liberal domestic legislation are a handful— just a tiny, futile, pitiful minority. They have been over- whelmed for 20 years by the reactionary leadership of the Old Guard. If the Repub- licans capture the Congress this year, the Old Guard would be even more firmly in the saddle. During the first month of his campaign, I thought the Republican candidate for Presi- dent was going to line up openly with the Old Guard. He picked an Old Guardsman for his Vice President. He picked an Old Guardsman for his national chairman, he put the Old Guard on his train. He accepted the surrender terms that Senator Taft handed him on Morningside Heights, and he em- braced Senators McCarthy and Jenner, and all the rest of the snollygosters and counter- feits who howl liberalism on a campaign — who howl liberalism in a campaign and then vote against the people every time they have a chance in the Congress. But now the Republican candidate for President has got all that dirty work behind him, and he's gone East. He has struck up a "me too" song to please the less reactionary wing of the Republican Party. He's en- dorsing one by one the things the Demo- cratic Party believes in, and the good things we've done for the people. He's making promises to give you more of these Demo- cratic good things. The Old Guard hasn't repudiated him, not yet, so I guess they don't believe what he is saying now. 955 [312] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents Perhaps nobody really knows which line the Republican candidate for President be- lieves. We don't know anything that he believes in. At least, I haven't been able to find out. But just assuming for a moment that he's sincere about all his new promises, how in the world is he going to deliver on them? When you hear those pretty promises, just remember, he's asking you to put Bob Taft in control of the Congress. And Taft will be standing there just like Horatius at the Bridge ready to mow down any progressive legislation that comes along. Now I wonder if the Republican candi- date really thinks he can tell Bob Taft what to do ? I think I know Bob Taft a lot better than he does. I've been fighting with Bob Taft for 7 years as President, and for a good many years before that in the Senate. The candidate for President fought with Taft for only a month or two before the conven- tion— and since the convention he has not even struggled with him. Then look who would be standing be- hind Taft in a Republican Congress. Gov- ernor Stevenson called them the "murderer's row," and that's a good name for them — made up of character assassins and reaction- aries and isolationists like McCarthy, Jenner, Bricker, Capehart, and Kem, who would control the Senate. Reactionaries and isola- tionists like Martin, Allen, Halleck, Taber, and Hoffman, who would control the House of Representatives. The candidate should think twice before he says any more about what he and his team are going to do. And the voters should think about 10 times before they do what the Republican candidate asks them and put that bunch of character assassins of murderer's row back in power in the Congress. Let's take a few cases and look at what you could expect from them. In New England, last week, the Republi- can candidate said he was against depres- sions. "If there is any sign on the horizon of a recession or an economic collapse," he said, the Republicans would see to it that "the full power of the Government is instandy marshalled, instantly concentrated and localized." Those are mighty brave words, my friends, but it's just plain naive to talk about getting that kind of action out of a Taft-controlled Congress. The basic idea of using the powers of Government instantly at the first sign of a depression was one we tried to write into law back in 1946. Senator Taft led the op- position to the whole idea. That would be Government planning, he said. That would be socialism. Old Guardsman Taft ridiculed the idea of having 60 million jobs after the war. "How can we say that there must be 60 million jobs when perhaps 50 million workers can do all the work of the Na- tion?" asked Taft. "There is no magic in more jobs — more people working," said Taft. The candidate for President says they'll move instantly to create jobs if necessary, but Taft says he doesn't see any magic in more people working. And I can inform the candidate, if he doesn't know it, that Bob Taft doesn't change. The Republican candidate talked about social security at New Haven. "They say we would like to repeal social security," he said. "When I hear that kind of lying, I don't know anything to do except to get angry." Now I can suggest something for him to do, when he gets over being angry. That's to look into the record of the men he calls his team in Congress. He really should have done that before he spoke, then he wouldn't have to get mad. Listen to these words, which were spoken about the original Social Security Act in 1935, and this is a quote: "Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought in here so insidiously as to prevent the business recovery, to en- 956 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 27 [312] slave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people." Now that is Old Guardsman Taber speak- ing— the man that the Republican candidate wants to put on his team as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, without whose blessing money will not be appro- priated for social security or for anything else. Almost to a man, the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted to leave the old-age insurance provisions out of the original Social Security Act in 1935. The men who voted that way are still in control of the Republicans in Congress. They haven't been in a position yet to repeal the program, but in 1948, when they were in control of the Congress, they voted to deny social security protection to 750,000 people. In 1949, 80 percent of the Republicans voted against adding disability protection to social security. Just this year, 66 percent of the Republicans in the House voted against a bill to increase social security payments although some of them changed their votes, a little later on when we gave them a chance to do it. This is all in the record. Yet the Repub- lican candidate blandly promises the people not only to keep social security but to im- prove and extend it, and when we question his sincerity, he doesn't know anything to do except to get angry. I might add that the Republican candi- date's own speeches of 3 years ago comparing social security to a prison have certainly not been reassuring to the working population of this great country. The candidate also gets angry because we accuse the Republican Party, he says, of wanting to beat down labor, to break up unions. "We must have a high level of wages," he says. We don't know much about the candi- date's own views on labor questions beyond a few vague generalities. But when he says they want to raise wages — meaning he and his fine team of Republican Congressmen — and they don't want to beat down unions, he can't blame us for not swallowing that one hook, line, and sinker. When he gets over being angry, he ought to look at the record of his team of Repub- licans that he wants the American people to reelect. The Republicans in the Senate voted 7 to 1 and the Republicans in the House of Rep- resentatives voted by a big majority against the minimum wage law which was passed in 1938, setting a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour. In 1947, Senate Republicans voted 45 to 3 against raising minimum wages to 60 cents. And in 1949, 92 percent of the House Republicans voted not only against raising the level to 75 cents but they also voted to cut 1 million workers from minimum wage protection. "We must have a high level of wages," says the candidate. But we'll get precious little help from his Republican team, which thinks 75 cents an hour is too much for a workingman to be paid. As for breaking up unions, the candidate says he doesn't want that to happen. But even he has admitted that the Taft-Hartley Act is written in such a way that it can be used for that purpose. Now does he think that Senator Taft didn't know what he was doing when he wrote that law? And yet Taft is the man he wants on his team as Chairman of the Senate Education and Labor Committee, in charge of labor legislation in the Senate. Furthermore, the Republican candidate picked as his own running-mate Senator Nixon, who has worked for the passage of union-busting legislation even more punitive than the Taft-Hartley law. When the can- didate cools off, he ought to look a little more closely at the people who are on his team. And if he does that, he will understand why we don't believe his pretty promises. Now let's look at agriculture. "We have worked out a bipartisan farm program to help stabilize agriculture," the 55-672—66^- ^64 957 [312] Oct. 27 Public Papers of the Presidents candidate said. "We must continue to im- prove this program." Now Fd like to know what that other party was, in his bipartisan program. It cer- tainly was not the Republican Party, you can be sure of that. Listen to these words, spoken in opposition to the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allot- ment Act of 1936: "Farmers ... are to be dominated and regimented for all time. No longer are they to be free men." Those words are the words of Old Guardsman Joe Martin, whom the Republican candidate wants you to put on his team as Speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line for succession to the Presidency. The candidate's team in Congress voted overwhelmingly against the original Triple- A Act, against Commodity Credit Corpora- tion loans. When the Republicans had con- trol of Congress in 1947 anc^ J94^5 tneY Put into effect the sliding scale which let the support prices slide down to 60 percent of parity, and took away from the Commodity Credit Corporation the right to acquire new storage facilities. And when the farmers found out about that, after I had gone up and down the States of Indiana and Illinois and Missouri and Iowa, and told them what was happen- ing to them, they kicked them out — and they are going to keep them out, don't worry about that. They kicked them out and they haven't been back since. And don't you let them back this time, either. The Republican candidate has been making a lot of easy promises about national defense. That brings me to a man from my own State, because the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is a Republi- can— Republican in Congress, and the Chair- man of that Armed Services Committee would be Old Guardsman Dewey Short of Missouri. Now, let's see what he stands for. I know Dewey pretty well. He was one of the men who voted to end selective service in September 1941, just 3 months before Pearl Harbor. He led the Republican opposition to the extension of the draft in 1946 and in 1948. He tried to block passage of the combat bonus bill for our boys serving in Korea. He is just about the last man in Congress to provide leader- ship in strengthening our national defense program. The Republican candidate is taking great pains these last few days to assure us that isolationism is dead. If we don't swallow that one either, the candidate ought to hold his temper and take a look at the other members of his team. Just as one example, the man he wants on his team as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Repre- sentatives is Old Guardsman Chiperfield. Isolationism may be dead in some places, but it sure lives in Mr. Chiperfield. Here is his record, or just part of it — I haven't got time to give you all of it. He voted against aid to Greece and Turkey. He voted against the Marshall plan. He voted against aid to Korea in 1950. He voted against establishing our military aid program. He voted against point 4. He voted last year to slash the Voice of America appropriations by $15 million. If the Republicans were elected, this man would be in charge of our foreign policy legislation in the House of Representatives. What help would he give us in getting the message of freedom to the Poles and the Czechs and the other distressed peoples be- hind the Iron Curtain? What help would he give our program of assistance to Israel, and to the Arab countries, and the free na- tions of the Far East? I ask you, just how much help would we get from Mr. Chiper- field in those lines ? Over in the Senate, Senator Taft would have a good deal to say about our foreign policy. Before the Chicago convention, the Republican candidate for President was re- ported to have said that Senator Taft is an isolationist. Republican Governor Adams of New Hampshire said that if Senator Taft were President, "he would rob America of 958 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Oct. 28 [313] friends we simply must not lose." Now, if you elect Eisenhower, Taft will be President, don't you worry about that. But now the Republican candidate says Taft is on his team, with the other Old Guardsmen like Chairman Chiperfield and Senator Capehart and Senator Jenner. This crew would push our country into an isola- tionist foreign policy no matter what the Republican candidate might try to do as President. When you hear the pleasant "me too" line on all these subjects, just remember that the Republican candidate's team is the Old Guard party. The same old Republican anti-party, anti-New Deal, anti-Fair Deal, anti-social security, anti-farm parity, anti- price control, anti-rent control, anti-every- thing else that's good for the people — and anti-foreign policy to go along with it. Now, my friends, the Republican candi- date either doesn't understand the political facts of life, or he is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, when he gives you fine promises of what he and his team will do. He may not know what the Old Guard is, but I think the American people know what it is. And when we express doubt as to the sincerity of the Republican intentions, the candidate doesn't know anything to do about it, except get angry. Well, let him cool off. Let him look at the record. Then he may understand some things. The Democratic Party stands on its rec- ord. The Democratic Party offers you a team that will really work for your interests. Governor Stevenson and Senator Sparkman and the Democratic Party in Congress stand together for progressive social legislation at home; they stand for strong defenses and strong allies as the surest road to peace. Remember that, when you go to the polls to vote on November 4. And be sure that you do go to vote. And take all your friends and all your neighbors. This is, my friends, the most important election in your life- time, and we can't afford to lose it. Now, if you do your part, you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 8:35 p.m. in the Municipal Auditorium, Gary, Ind. His opening words referred to Mayor Peter Mandich of Gary, Ind. Later he referred to Governor Henry F. Schricker, Democratic candidate for Senator, Repre- sentative Ray J. Madden, and John A. Watkins, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of Indiana, George Norris, Representative (1903-13) and Senator (1913-43) from Nebraska, Robert M. LaFollette, Representative (1885-91) and Senator (1906-25) from Wisconsin, Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon, Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, and William E. Jenner of Indiana, Senator Richard M. Nixon of California, Republican candidate for Vice President, Representa- tives Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts, Dewey Short of Missouri, and Robert B. Chiperfield of Illinois, and Governor Sherman Adams of New Hampshire. The address was broadcast. 313 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Minnesota. October 28, 1952 [1.] Winona, Minnesota (Rear platform, 8:05 a.m.) This is my last trip around the country as President of the United States, and I am very glad to have a chance to come here to Winona before I leave that Office. I am out campaigning for two things— for continued prosperity for this country, and for world peace. If you look at the record, if you look at what we have done in the last 20 years, you will see that you can trust the Democratic Party to work these things out. And you will see that you can- not trust the Republicans. The Democratic Party has two of the 959 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents finest candidates this year that were ever put before the people — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Adlai Stevenson is a man who knows civilian government. He has been a great Governor of a great State, and he is also an expert in foreign affairs. He understands our system of government be- cause he has made it work successfully for the good of the people. The Republican candidate is a profes- sional Army general. He is a good man in that line of work, but he doesn't understand civilian government. No professional gen- eral has ever made a good President. The art of war is too different from the art of civilian government. The Democratic vice-presidential candi- date is a man who came up to the Senate by his own efforts. He is one of the great liberals in the Senate. He votes every time for the interests of the little fellow, for the United Nations, and for international cooperation. The Republican candidate for Vice Presi- dent is an inexperienced young man, who was put into the Senate by a little group of rich men in southern California. His sup- porters are oil men, real estate operators, and tax lawyers. They pay him extra money for his office expenses. He votes every time for the big interests and against the little fellow. All I want you to do is just to think these things over. You can trust the Democratic Party to work for peace. It has created firm de- fenses and alliances around the world. It saw the Communist menace and moved to meet it while the Republican Party was still asleep to the danger. We can say now, with certainty, that the Communists are not going to take over the rest of the world. We have met Communist aggression the way it had to be met — with force. And our sacrifices in Korea have kept us out of a third world war. If we had followed the advice of the Re- publican isolationists, we would have lost both Europe and the Far East by now, and we would be standing alone against com- munism with our backs to the wall. On the other hand, if we had followed the advice of some of our generals, we would probably be involved in a much greater con- flict. In the Far East, one general almost got us into a much bigger war — against China and Russia — and I had to remove him. If we want to have peace, we must always keep civilians at the head of our Govern- ment. Now, my friends, we can't have peace unless we keep our country strong and prosperous. If we have a depression, we will be easy pickings for the Communists. The Republicans promise you prosperity. They are full of promises to the people just before election time. But those promises don't square with their votes in the Congress. Take their promises to the farmers this year. They have some very vague language in their platform about their farm pro- gram. But just this spring a majority of the Republican Congressmen voted to put an end to farm price supports at 90 percent of parity. And just last year, a majority of the Republican Senators voted to cut flood control in this country right in half. These are just two examples out of many — a great many. The story is the same wher- ever you look — social security, minimum wages, aid to housing, health, and education. A great majority of the Republicans vote against these things regularly, every time they have a chance. Don't look to the Republicans to keep us prosperous and strong. You had better not listen to what they have to say. Look at what they do. Look at their record. Give it some thought. And then what you should do is to think first of the interests and wel- fare of the greatest Nation in the history of the world. And then you must think of your own interests. If you do that, I have no doubt what you will do next Tuesday. You will go to the polls and vote the Democratic ticket. You will vote to send Bill Carlson to the Senate, to help Hubert Humphrey fight your bat- 960 Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Oct. 28 [313] ties. You will send George Alfson to Con- gress. You will make Orville Freeman your next Governor. And you will vote to send down to the White House that fine, progressive Governor of one of our great States — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Thank you very much. [2.] Red Wing, Minnesota (Rear plat- form, 9:20a.m.) I am more than happy to be here. This certainly is a fine turnout. And I am happy to say that it has been this way on all my stops throughout the country. The people are anxious to hear the facts in this election year, and that is just what I am trying to give them — I am trying to get them to think for themselves. That is the only reason I am out. I want the people to have a chance at the facts, and they can't get a chance at those facts unless I tell them what they are. First of all, I want to pay a tribute to a wonderful person whose home is here in Red Wing, and that is our United States Ambassador to Denmark, Eugenie Ander- son. Eugenie Anderson is one of the finest human beings I know. She is the kind of Democrat that makes me proud of my party, and she is doing a wonderful job for us in Copenhagen. We have a wonderful num- ber of Foreign Service representatives in the service of the Foreign Service of the United States, and Eugenie Anderson is among the tops. Through her splendid work in Denmark, Eugenie Anderson is doing her part to help build the strength and unity of the free na- tions of Europe. And in this way she is help- ing to protect her own country; because our own safety, and our chances of preventing another world war depend upon how suc- cessful we are in helping other nations to be- come strong and to stay free. We are engaged in a great struggle for peace. One part of that struggle is military. That means defenses, and fighting against aggression. The other part is civilian. It means helping other countries, through eco- nomic aid and other assistance, to keep strong. If a friendly country goes bankrupt, or suffers economic collapse, it can't stand up against communism and stay free. Over the last 6 years, in Europe and Asia, we have helped dozens of friendly countries in this way. This is a vital part of our national defense. It is a new thing. We have given this sort of help to our allies in a war, but this time we are giving it to friendly countries to prevent a war. By making other countries strong enough to stand up against commu- nism, we are working to save the lives of American boys. This is the kind of work Eugenie Anderson is doing in Europe, and it is just as important as the work of an Army general. This part of our struggle for peace is clearly at stake in this election. The Old Guard Republicans are against helping other nations in this way. And they will control the Congress if the Republicans are elected. They have shown by their voting records that they do not understand how important other nations are to our national defense. In 1949 the Republican Congressmen voted almost 2 to 1 against the military aid program, in- cluding military aid to the Republic of Ko- rea. In 1950 they voted 3 to 1 against point 4. In 1 95 1 Republican Senators voted overwhelmingly, six different times, to crip- ple economic aid for Western Europe. And just this year, three-fourths of the Republican Senators voted disastrous slashes in the eco- nomic and military aid to our allies. If we are going to have peace, we have to stay prosperous here at home. But the policies of the Republican Party are a threat to our prosperity. Look at their attitude on farm programs, for example. Over the years we have built up farm prosperity through farm programs like soil conserva- tion, price supports, and rural electrification. But if you look at the Republican voting record in Congress, you will see the Repub- 961 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents licans usually voting to cut or trim these programs, or voting against improvements on them. You might even look at the rec- ord of your own Congressman, and see where he stands. I urge you to inform yourselves on these issues. That's all I am asking you to do. I want you to get the facts for yourselves, and make up your own minds. I urge you to vote for your own interests. Vote for the party and the candidates that have shown they understand the importance of the work your own Eugenie Anderson is doing in the cause of peace. Vote for the party and the candidates who understand the needs of the workingman, the farmer, the businessman, and the house- wife in this day and age. If you do that, you will send Bill Carlson to the Senate, and George Alfson to the House. Orville Freeman will be your next Governor. And you will send down to the White House that fine, progressive Gover- nor of the great State of Illinois — Adlai Stevenson. [3.] Hastings, Minnesota (Rear platform, 9:58 a.m.) I am very glad to be here. You know, I was very appreciative of the wonderful support that this city and county gave me in 1948. I needed it badly then, and I need it badly again. I hope you will keep on staying with me. I am working harder in this campaign than I did for my own election. The reason I am doing that is because I think it is of vital importance that people understand just exactly what the issues and the facts are in this campaign. I am trying to give you the facts, and then I want you to think about them. I want you to use your heads. If you will do that, I will have accomplished my purpose. In this election the people of this country will be making one of the gravest decisions since the Civil War. That is why it is so very important that you understand just what is at stake for you. I am doing my best to see that you get the full story. This election is so important because we are halfway through a great worldwide program for peace. We are up against a terrific danger — the danger of Communist aggression. Our aim is to lick that danger without having a third world war. That is what we are doing. If we had followed the advice of the Re- publican isolationists, we would have lost Europe and all Asia to the Communists by now. We would have weak defenses. We would be with our backs to the wall, with- out allies, against the Communist power that had gobbled up the free world. On the other hand, if we had followed the advice of some of our generals, we would have gotten ourselves involved in a large- scale war in China and Russia. We did neither of these things. We have strong allies around the world, and strong defenses. We have checked aggression in Korea, and held back a third world war. This is a difficult road to follow. The fighting in Korea is something we are using all our efforts to bring to a stop. But we must not give up in Korea, or we will bring on the greater danger we are trying to avoid; that is, the danger of a third world war. We are winning in this worldwide struggle against communism. But if we stop now, and let the isolationists take over the Congress, and the generals take over the White House, we may be in terrible trouble. I can't think of anything worse than a professional military man at the top of this Government, with a military way of think- ing about world affairs, supported by a Republican Congress that won't vote enough money for our defenses. Now, remember this. We cannot win this struggle for peace unless we are prosperous at home. But the Republican Party won't keep us prosperous at home, any more than they will keep us safe against communism. 962 Harry S. Truman, J952 Oct. 28 [313] Let me give you an example of the way the Republicans act about prosperity. The Republicans talk now as if they were in favor of good strong farm price supports. The Republican candidate for President talked about 100 percent of parity. But the Republican platform didn't say that. In fact, if you read it you won't know quite what it means. That Republican plat- form— you ought to take that Republican platform and compare it with the Democratic platform. The Republican platform is the worst piece of gobbledegook I have read in 40 years of politics — and I have been reading the Democratic platforms for 40 years. Now, more than half — more than half the Republicans in the House of Representa- tives voted against price supports at 90 per- cent of parity just this last June. That is what they think of price supports. The position of the Democratic Party is perfectly clear. The Democrats got our present price support program, at 90 per- cent of parity, extended through 1954. Now, that's performance on the job. The Democratic platform pledges to keep that program and to extend price supports to the producers of perishable commodities. That's our promise, and we will keep it if you keep enough Republicans out of the Congress, so we can keep it. The Democratic candidate stands firm on the Democratic platform. And he is a man who knows something about farming and farm programs, and how this Govern- ment works. It's the same story with every other issue — rural electrification, social security, fair labor laws, aid to small business. The Re- publican platform and the Republican voting record prove over and over again that the Old Guard Republican Party has not changed one bit. It is for the special inter- ests and against the people. Now don't listen to what these Republi- cans say at election time. Look at what they do. I am asking you to read the record — that's all I am asking you to do. I wouldn't have to argue if I could get everybody here just to read the record — you would be convinced. Don't risk that sweet talk they are making. You will regret it for 4 long years, if you let that siren song put you to sleep and cause you to vote the wrong way. Examine the platforms, as I say, and ex- amine the voting records and the qualifica- tions of each candidate. Then go to the polls and vote for your own interests, vote for the party that has always worked for you — the Democratic Party. And if you do that, Bill Carlson will join Senator Humphrey to help him fight your battles in the Senate; Dick Malone will go to represent you in the House; Orville Freeman will do a fine job for you as Governor of this great State — and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House for 4 more years of good government. [4.] St. Paul, Minnesota (Rice Park, 11:13 a.m.) Mr, Chairman, distinguished guests on this platform, and ladies and gentlemen: I am very happy to be back in St. Paul once more. I remember very well how kind you were to me when I was here in 1948. You gave me just such a reception as this, which I certainly did appreciate. Then you went out and voted for me on election day — and that was all to the good, too. That helped me a lot. Now my hope is that you will do as well or better by the new standard bearer of the Democratic Party Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I urge you to vote for him and for his running mate John Sparkman, and for all the fine progressive candidates on the Democratic-Farmer-Labor ticket here in Minnesota. That is the purpose of my visit here to St. Paul today. For 5 weeks, now, I have been traveling across the country campaigning for a Demo- cratic victory in this election. I am not 963 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents doing this for myself. I am not running for any office, and don't expect to. I expect nothing from Governor Stevenson and I have asked him for nothing. The Demo- cratic Party and the people of this country have given me all the rewards a man could ever want or ever seek. I am more than happy and grateful for what the Democratic Party has done for me. And I am going to continue to try to repay that and show my gratefulness. I am not like some of these birds, get all they can out of the party and get rich and go off and join the Republicans. I am going to be a Democrat until I die. I have entered this campaign on my own account — my own account, on account of the fact that I believe there are things at stake in this election that we must be informed on. I have come here with a deep conviction that your future — our whole country's future — is at stake in this election. The choice is yours to make. But I am deeply anxious that you make it on the basis of your own interest, and in the light of the full facts. The people cannot make a choice that will be right for them and good for them, unless they have the facts. And so I have made it my business to bring the facts to the people. I have gone around the country reading the record on the Republican Party and on their candidate for President. This has enraged the Republicans no end — and that makes me very happy. It has infuriated the one-party press. In lofty edi- torials from coast to coast, I have been ac- cused of "mud-slinging." When the Republican candidate for Presi- dent permitted Senator Taft to tell the wait- ing world that they agreed on all domestic issues, I pointed out that this meant sur- render to the Republican Old Guard. That was called "mud-slinging" by the press — but it was a fact, and is and was a fact today. When the Republican candidate began to shout that the Democratic Party had been too well disposed toward the Soviets at the close of World War II, I pointed out — citing his own book and his own testimony before Congress — that he had suffered more than most from soft delusions about Soviet inten- tions. The editorials professed deep shock that I should dare to throw the General's own words back at him — but they were the facts, right in the record he had made for himself. When the Republican candidate — so recently Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers — began to promise fantastic cuts in our defense budget and in aid to our allies, I pointed out that this involved abandoning our allies and crippling our own Armed Forces. Again I was accused of "mud- slinging." But that was the plain, hard fact. The General's promises meant noth- ing but surrender to the policies of isola- tionism, in the guise of a budget cut. I am here to say to you that I have had a hand in 18 budgets of this United States Government, and I have made 8 of them my- self. I know more about the budget of the United States than any man alive except the Budget Director. When the Republican candidate, of his own free will and motion, embraced Jenner of Indiana and McCarthy of Wisconsin — and endorsed them both for reelection as members of his "great crusade" — I pointed out that these two men had falsely slandered his own great benefactor, General George C. Marshall. He did not come to George C. Marshall's defense until I forced him to make a statement on it. I called that action a betrayal of morality and principle. The editorials screamed "mud-slinging." But I stated the facts, and I was right. When the candidate accepted Chapman Revercomb of West Virginia into his cru- sade, I pointed out that this man's record was so shameful and full of prejudice that even Thomas Dewey refused to endorse him in 1948. I stated that the present candidate must take responsibility for the company he keeps. You remember "Old Dog Tray," don't you? The very newspapers that had praised Dewey 4 years ago, when he rejected this same association, hurled cries of "foul blow" at me, for even bringing up the sub- ject. Dewey, himself, burst out hysterically 964 Harry S. Truman, igp Oct. 28 [313] into shouts of "lies" and "treason" aimed at the President of the United States. Yet what I had done was to point up the fact that Dewey's own conduct showed far greater scruples than the present candidate has now displayed. The comparison was all in Dewey's fa- vor. Perhaps that's what upset him so. Perhaps that's what disturbs the editors. Maybe they are all secretly ashamed of this man they now support. Whatever they may feel, there's one thing I am sure of. If they are startled by the words I've used in this campaign, they should be shocked and horrified by the facts which I have brought out. Instead of hurl- ing epithets at me, they should be calling on their favored candidate to face up to the grave defects in his own course of conduct and in his party's record. But that, I fear, the Republican politi- cians and the one-party press will never do. The last thing in the world they want to do is to face the facts and run on the record. The Republicans are well aware that they cannot win this election if their past per- formance is exposed to public view. That is really why they yell so loudly every time I make a speech. I tell the truth on them — and it hurts! People yell to me "Give 'em hell, Harry." Well now, I think that's a pretty bad reputa- tion for a good Baptist to have. The only thing I am doing is telling the truth, and that's a lot worse than giving 'em hell. You see, the whole strategy of the Re- publicans in this campaign has been to hide their record all they can. That's why they chose a military hero for their candidate. And that is why in the last month of the campaign, they have started to sing the "me too" song that Dewey used to sing — and the same old "me too" song that Willkie sang before him. For 3 years and 11 months out of every 4 years, the Republicans spend their time fighting and opposing almost every meas- ure to benefit the people and to help build up our country. They violently dislike the things the New Deal and the Fair Deal stand for and they make no secret of it — in between elections. Then, in October of each presidential election year they always realize that the people really like the progress the Demo- crats have brought them. So the Repub- licans have no choice but to start singing "me too" in the hope that you'll forget the record, or that you'll believe this death- bed repentance act of theirs is honest and sincere. Well, you didn't believe them in 1944 — and I was in that campaign, too. And you didn't believe them in 1948 — and I had something to do with that campaign, too. And they have spent their time between elec- tions proving just how right you were in not believing them. In the campaign of 1948 they said they were for social security, then they came right back to Congress and voted against social security improvements. They said they were for housing, then they fought low-rent housing every year from 1949 up to now. They said they were for help- ing schools, and voted against aid to educa- tion. They said they were for helping farmers, and they voted against 90 percent price supports. But now, in the closing weeks of this campaign they have gone back to the "me too" song once more. They said they are for social security, al- though their candidate for President has compared it to being in jail. They say they are for supporting farm prices, although they forgot to put that in their platform. I wish you would read that Republican platform. It's a "dinger." It's the best piece of gobbledegook I have run across in 44 years of reading platforms. They say they are for labor unions, but they're going to keep the Taft-Hartley law. In fact, they endorsed it in their convention. They say they are for civil liberties — and they ask for the reelection of Senator Mc- Carthy to help protect the Bill of Rights. He doesn't know it's in the Constitution. 965 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents My friends, the only thing to say to this Republican "me too" campaign is the same thing you said before: "What you do speaks so loud, that I can't hear what you say." That's what you're gonna say to them. Now, it is quite clear that the Republicans fear you may do just that. The "me too" song did not work for them in 1940, or 1944, or 1948. And this time, while they are using it, they are not counting on it quite as much as they used to. Apparently, they have decided that it is not enough, they must do something more. And so, they have injected another ele- ment into their national campaign — the ele- ment of smear and fear, the element of slander and character assassination. If the Republicans can't fool the people on the issues, by saying "me too," they think per- haps the tactics of Joe McCarthy will get the people so confused and fearful and sus- picious that they will forget the issues. They are applying tactics to the Nation this year, that they've tested out before in certain States — in California and Maryland and Utah, among others. Now, you are seeing them tried nationally — even here in Minnesota. In your own city this Republican smear business is now being used against one of the finest, most liberal, and loyal Americans in the Congress of the United States, my friend Gene McCarthy. Gene McCarthy is a man who's fought his whole life against the bad conditions that breed communism here at home — a man who's fought staunchly for all our programs to stop the spread of communism abroad. He is a good father, he is a good citizen, he is a good Catholic, your own friend and towns- man— and he is my friend, and I am proud to acknowledge it publicly. My friends, if they can get away with this — if you let them smear Gene Mc- Carthy— then I expect they'll feel their tactics can be used anywhere, any time, against anyone. They must look upon this as a real test, my friends, and so do I. For if Gene McCarthy is not safe from this sort of thing, then nobody is safe — nobody in St. Paul, nobody in Minnesota, nobody in the whole United States. Of all the issues raised in this campaign, this is the most serious and the most danger- ous. If Joe McCarthyism can triumph over a good man like Gene McCarthy, the rights and liberties of all Americans will be in deadly peril. And that means you, my friends, each and everyone of you. We must not let this happen. You must not let it happen. It shouldn't happen any- where. I urge upon you, think carefully about the decision you must make next Tuesday. Do not be misled by the military splendor of a five-star candidate. Do not be misled by Republican "me too" promises that are sure to be forgotten when election time is past. Above all, do not be deceived by slander and false rumor and character assassination. Remember who you are and what you are. You are free men and women — and Ameri- cans. You are the sovereigns in this democ- racy of ours. It is up to you to choose your Government — you must then live by that choice for 4 long years. When you make that vital choice, make it in the light of the facts as they are. Make it in the light of your own interests and your country's interests. Always remember, vote for the good of this great Republic. Vote for what is good for you, and what is good for the free world. If you do that, if you think these things through as you should, I know exacdy what will happen when you go to the polls. You will vote for a fine man to represent you in the United States Senate, BilJ Carlson. He will make a good teammate for Hubert Humphrey. You will vote to vindicate your friend and neighbor, Gene McCarthy. You will vote for yourselves a good pro- gressive Governor in Orville Freeman. And for President, my friends, you will select a man who has shown courage and wisdom, and great strength of character in this campaign — a man who is talking sense to the American people, taking a stand on 966 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 28 [313] every issue, without fear or favor, a most able and progressive Governor of one of our great States — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. [5.] Minneapolis, Minnesota (Pioneer Square, 12:30 p.m.) I am certainly having a fine visit in Min- nesota. I always do. I am especially glad to be in Minneapolis, the home of my good friend, that fighting liberal, Senator Hubert Humphrey. It is gratifying to find such a splendid slate of candidates on the Deniocratic-Farm- er-Labor Party ticket. Bill Carlson has been a dynamic and progressive member of your legislature for three terms. He will make a fine Senator and a great helper to Hubert Humphrey. Roy Wier, who just gave me that won- derful introduction, from your Third Con- gressional District, has a record in Congress that our party can be proud of. He repre- sents the farmers, labor, and all the people. We need him back in Washington next year. And from your Fifth District, I want you to send to Congress a good Minnesota liberal, Karl Rolvaag. Minnesota should have a Democratic Governor next year, and the man for the job is Orville Freeman. Now, one thing about this is that these candidates represent the youth, the vigor, and the idealism that have gone into the past 20 years of Democratic progress. I hope you will elect all of them on November the 4th — and I am sure you will. I am here today to ask you to elect, as President of the United States, one of the greatest men the Democratic Party has ever produced — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. As I told your neighbors in St. Paul, I have been campaigning across this country for just one purpose, to tell the people the facts and the truth about the issues in this campaign. I am doing that because I want to make as certain as I can that all of you are well in- formed when you go to the polls next Tuesday. I am not asking anything for myself in this election. But I am anxious, most anx- ious, that you have an understanding of what is at stake — for you, and for this coun- try— to which we all owe so much. Let me put it to you as simply and as hon- estly as I can. We are approaching what is probably the most important election since the Civil War. We are in what may be the most crucial stage in our progress toward lasting peace. This election may decide whether we go forward toward peace, or fall back into isolation and ultimate disaster. Moreover, this election may decide wheth- er we shall keep and extend the great gains in welfare and in security that have come to all our people in the past 20 years, or whether the policies that brought these gains are go- ing to be reversed. Today I want to talk to you briefly about the nature of our prosperity. I have dis- cussed it before, and I will talk about it again at Hibbing tonight, in a speech which I understand will be broadcast throughout Minnesota. I hope you will listen to it, for I will have something to say that will make the Repub- licans dance a jig. The Republican Party in this election can- not deny we have prosperity. So they have tried to tell you it is somehow the wrong kind of prosperity. The first thing they would like to say is that our prosperity de- pends on war. That is absolutely and delib- erately false. A complete answer to that charge is found in the statistics of our peace- time economy for the whole period between the end of World War II and the beginning of our current defense program. Before the outbreak of aggression in Ko- rea, we had achieved a peacetime prosperity that was breaking all records — whether they would be measured in jobs, production, na- tional income, profits, or almost any other significant measure of prosperity. What we did before Korea shows the kind of prosperity we could have, if a share of our resources were not required for defense. Then we could be building more homes, 967 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents more schools, more hospitals and highways, power dams and transmission lines. We could be modernizing and expanding fac- tories to produce more automobiles and other consumer goods, instead of weapons. But when the Communist forces invaded the Republic of Korea in June of 1950, we had no choice but to shift a share of our re- sources to a great defense production pro- gram. And that defense program, my friends, is holding down prosperity, not keeping it up. Since June of 1950 we have deliberately decided to sacrifice some of our peacetime prosperity for the sake of national and world security. I would like to remind you now of the de- gree of national unity we had when that decision was first made 2 years ago. There were no carping critics then, of the kind that are now leading, or misleading, the Republican Party. Among those who supported our great military buildup to strengthen the free world against the threat of aggression was the very general who is now a candidate for President on the Republican ticket. Nearly 2 years ago he told the Congress he was terribly proud of our country for undertaking our mobilization program. But now he has for- gotten to mention his pride in his country's program. Now he only says that we are on a "treadmill prosperity" because of it. He says our real income has not risen, because of the higher taxes and the higher prices that have resulted from the defense pro- gram. He implies that we shouldn't have high taxes. And in the same breath he promises to reduce prices. Now, anybody who knows anything about economics knows you can't keep taxes low in a time of heavy expenditures and still hold prices down. Everybody knows that if we had not levied higher taxes when we did, we would simply have more inflation. This administration has tried to pay as we go for the cost of national defense. How would the Republican candidate have done it? I don't know. Would he have kept taxes down and borrowed the money to finance the program? He must know that the bigger the borrowing the greater the inflationary pressure. Would he have met this pressure with firm price controls, or would he have lined up with the majority of Republicans in Congress who are opposed to price controls ? He has actually suggested, on several occasions, that he too is an enemy of price controls. The latest instance was only last night at Pittsburgh. There he criticised what he called Government interference with labor-management relations. He re- ferred to the steel and coal cases, where the Government had to consider the terms of settlement, in order to carry out wage and price controls. If the Republican candidate is against this kind of Government participation, then he can only mean to scrap these controls — and without them there is no effective way to check the inflation he claims to be against. To be at one and the same time for the defense program, but against taxes and op- posed to price control, may sound like smart politics to a candidate who doesn't know the facts, or doesn't care. Perhaps it even sounds like sensible economics to a man whose life has been spent on Army posts. But the American people know more about the economic facts of life than he apparently has ever learned. They can't afford this kind of ignorance or confusion — or sheer hypocrisy — in the President of the United States. I have gone into this in some detail, not only to tell you that your prosperity is real, but to show you what kind of campaign the Republican candidate is carrying on. He has shown that he will say almost anything he thinks might help him get votes. He will say one thing in New York, another thing in South Carolina. He will say one thing in California and another thing in Pennsylvania. Now, I don't know whether he understands that the news in this country is universal or not — that what I say is true, what I say here will be heard in California — and what he says in Pennsyl- 968 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 28 [313] vania will be heard in the great State of Washington. He will play on your natural desire for lower taxes by suggesting that present taxes aren't necessary, when he either does or should know they are abso- lutely vital. He will play on your re- sentment of high prices by promising to bring them down — and he will still be against controlling prices. He will play on the hopes and fears of wives and mothers by pretending he knows how to end the Korean war — when he knows of no solu- tion. I know he knows of no solution because I made him Chief of Staff. I put him in com- mand of NATO — the European defense recovery program. He was my military ad- viser— one of the principal ones up to the time he decided to run for President. And if he knew any panacea to end the Korean situation, he should have told me and not make a campaign issue out of it. He will play on the hopes of our young men by implying that he has a way to stop the draft, when he knows very well it is essential now to maintain the Armed Forces we must have. And it goes on — it is indeed a strange crusade. It is a crusade that constandy misrepresents the facts, and confuses the issues. It is a crusade that plays brutally and cynically on whatever anxieties and fears the candidate can find or create among the voters. The campaign that Adlai Stevenson has conducted must seem to you — as it does to me — to be an immensely refreshing con- trast. It is a campaign of honesty, sin- cerity, consistency, and high principle. I urge you to listen to Adlai Stevenson every chance you get between now and Tuesday, and get to know him well. He is a man you can trust. Here is a man who can give our country the leadership it needs for the next 4 years. So get out next Tuesday and look after your own interests. Remember that the welfare of this great Republic is at stake. Remember that the Bill of Rights, the prin- cipal part of the Constitution of the United States, is at stake in this campaign. Re- member that the welfare of the free world is at stake. And the next thing that is most important to you is to do a little think- ing. Use your head. This is your country. You are the boss. You exercise that author- ity on next Tuesday. If you exercise it correctly, you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good govern- ment. [6.] Duluth, Minnesota (Near the train, 4:58 p.m.) Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. It was just 96 in the shade that day I was here that he was talking about, and everybody I met — and I met a lot of people — said that didn't happen, it was just an accident. May- be it was because I was there, stirring up things — like I am trying to do today. I appreciate very much this wonderful reception. It is wonderful. You know, of course, if you haven't heard — I will let you in on a secret — I am not running for office this time, but I have been delighted with the way people all over the country have turned out to listen to what I have to say now on this campaign trip for the Democratic ticket. You have a good Democratic slate here in Minnesota. For the Senate, Bill Carlson, whom you should send to the Senate to work with Senator Humphrey in the interest of all the people. He will make you a good Senator. For Congress, John Blatnik. We call him "Mr. St. Lawrence Seaway" himself. John Blatnik has never let up in his fight for the St. Lawrence project. He has really under- stood what it would mean for this area and for the whole country to have oceangoing travel between Duluth and European ports. So you just be sure to keep him in the Con- gress where he can continue the fight for this great project. For Governor, Orville Freeman. He is a 969 [313] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents fine young man. He will restore proper law enforcement in your State. He is the kind of man the Democratic Party is proud to have on the ticket. This year the Democratic Party offers the country two national candidates of outstand- ing ability — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They understand the vital is- sues of our day, and they are telling the peo- ple just where they stand on every one of them. Their positions on these issues have not changed one bit throughout the entire campaign, regardless of which one of the 48 States they visited. But that is not the way the Republican candidate for President has been conducting his campaign. In his travels across the country he has developed a new position on about every issue — depending upon which wing of the Republican Party he is courting at the time, and which local issue he is ex- ploiting. I imagine he is getting pretty em- barrassed by some of this now, so when he gets a chance he harps back to a story he has been peddling for quite a while now. It is the story about how badly off the people are after 20 years with the New Deal and the Fair Deal. Now I have been up and down this coun- try from one end to the other, and at one time the Republican candidate for President remarked that the country was a wreck. Well, it's the livest wreck I ever saw in my life, and I think everybody liked it. I have never seen a more prosperous layout in this great United States than we have now. This prosperity seems to be driving the Republicans crazy. They just go round and round and round — they are trying to stop it, but they don't know how. They can't bear to see the country so well off under the Democrats, so they are doing their best to try to explain it away. They are trying to tell you that our prosperity can't last, because they say that the defense effort is the only thing holding up the economy. That is not true. Our prosperity is sound and it is healthy. Right now we have a total national production of about $340 billion. Defense production accounts for less than a sixth of it. Now, get this straight. If it were not for the defense effort, we would be even more prosperous than we are today. The defense effort is making us postpone and put off a lot of things we need, things that would make our country greater and stronger. Take the situation right here in Duluth. Your harbor handled more than 73 million tons of cargo in 195 1 — second only to water- borne commerce in New York Harbor. Just this year Congress passed a law au- thorizing the deepening of the channel, and when this is completed you will be able to handle even greater tonnage. When the St. Lawrence Seaway is com- pleted— as it will be, someday — your trans- portation industry will boom to even greater heights than you know now. And when the full uses of the taconite ore are developed, a whole new industry will be brought to this area. In all these ways the future holds out promise of even greater prosperity. And as soon as we can ease off on defense, more at- tention can be devoted to all these problems. There need be no depression in this coun- try, if you keep the kind of government in Washington that understands these things and will help get new production going in the right places and at the right time. That is one thing the Democratic Party knows how to do, and we have proved it. For the first time in history, we have kept the country out of a depression after a big war. That was in 1945 and 1946. In 1949, when things started to slide back, we took quick and immediate action, and by the spring of 1950 we were back in boom times again. That was before Korea started. The de- fense buildup had nothing whatever to do with it. Now the Republican candidate for President is making all sorts of promises in the world about assuring prosperity under Republican leadership. But he is in no posi- tion to make good on those promises any more than he can make good on the other easy promises he is pulling out of his hat 970 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 28 [314] these last days before the election. And that goes for his grandstanding on Korea, just like everything else. The General has lived the specialized life of a soldier. He has been a fine military man, but the Army is all he has ever known in his whole life. Now he is surrounded by the Republican Old Guard, the very men who have opposed every progressive program that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have put out and that has led this country to pros- perity and world leadership. Those old mossbacks have taken the General into camp completely. They don't let him find out a thing about what is going on. A combination like this not only could bring on the worst depression we have ever known, it could well result in the loss of every gain we have made in the past 7 years in the struggle for world peace. I am going to make a speech tonight in Hibbing, telling you just why the Repub- lican Party cannot be trusted to keep this country prosperous and secure. I hope you will all listen to that speech over the radio. But remember this. You cannot afford to take a chance on turning your country over to a confused general who is just a "babe in the woods" — and Senator Taft controls the woods. You cannot trust our prosperity to a com- bination like that. You most surely cannot trust them with the peace of the world. Think things over carefully. Think of your own interests, and think of the interests and the welfare of the greatest Nation the sun ever shone upon. We have the greatest and the most powerful nation in the history of the world. The Office of President is the greatest and most powerful office that ever was, and you must be very careful that you put a man in that office that you can trust, a man who understands what goes on in the world, as well as what goes on in this country. If you do that, you will go to the polls and vote for the party that has always worked for all the people and has faced up to the responsibilities of leadership in the fight for peace. If you do that — if you do a little think- ing— that's all I am trying to get you to do, I am just trying to get you to study the record, I want you to study the record of the Republicans in Congress and the Demo- crats in Congress, and then I want you to think about the welfare of the greatest na- tion in history, I want you to think about your own welfare — and if you do that, you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States on the 4th day of Novem- ber, and we will have 4 more years of good government. Thank you very much. note: In the course of his remarks on October 28 the President referred to William E. Carlson, Democratic candidate for Senator, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, George Alfson, Democratic candi- date for Representative, Orville L. Freeman, Demo- cratic candidate for Governor, Eugenie Anderson, U.S. Ambassador to Denmark, Richard T. Ma- lone, Democratic candidate for Representative, Ger- ald O'Donnell, chairman of the St. Paul, Minn., meeting, Representatives Eugene J. McCarthy and Roy W. Wier, Karl Rolvaag, Democratic candidate for Representative, Mayor George W. Johnson of Duluth, and Representative John A. Blatnik, all of Minnesota, Senators William E. Jenner of Indiana and Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, and Governor Thomas E. Dewey of New York. 314 Address at the Municipal Auditorium, Hibbing, Minnesota. October 28, 1952 I CERTAINLY do appreciate this most cordial welcome. And you know what you have done? When we were in Pittsburgh, in the Mosque there, there are 4,208 seats, or something like that, and my daughter informed me that she had 50 more people 971 [314] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents in that hall than I did. You have overcome that. We have got twice as many people here as she had when she was in Minnesota. I am highly, highly pleased with this most cordial welcome, and I do want to say to you how very much I appreciated the most cordial welcome you gave to my daughter when she was here. You know, i£ you want to get at the old man, that is a good way to do it. I like to campaign in Minnesota. In 1948 Minnesota treated me as well as any State in the country when I spoke here. And on election day, Minnesota gave the Democratic ticket the thing that counts — 11 votes in the electoral college — and I needed them in 1948. Now I have a very strong feeling that the same thing is going to happen this year. Minnesota is going to be among those States voting to make Adlai Stevenson the next President of this great country. I hope, too, that you'll put a fine Demo- crat in the Governor's chair — the man who just introduced me, Orville Freeman. You have some great Democrats from Minnesota in the United States Congress, and we need more of them. You know that Hubert Humphrey is fighting your battles down in Washington, and fighting them with all of his great energy and ability. He needs another forthright fighter down there with him, and from what I can see, Bill Carlson is your man. As for John Blatnik, I'm sure he doesn't need any help from me or anybody else. He has certainly earned a return trip to Washington. You know what we call him down in Washington? — "Mr. St. Lawrence Seaway." That great project has been held back by the railroad interests, the power interests, and a lot of other selfish groups that are trying to prevent the natural growth of this great region. But it is go- ing to be built in spite of them. Unless the Congress passes a law very soon, authorizing the United States to join in building the Seaway, Canada is going to build it alone. That will be of great benefit to this country, because under our treaty with Canada, our shipping can move through the Seaway at the same rates of toll as the Canadian shipping. But it would be a lot better for us to join in the project so that we could share in the control of it. If the coun- try will give John Blatnik enough good Democrats in the House of Representatives to work with him, and give Hubert Hum- phrey enough good Democrats in the Senate to work with him, then we will join in the construction of the Seaway, as we should. But one other way — we are going to get the Seaway, one way or another, and we are going to make a seaport out of Duluth — which will be one of the greatest things for this part of the world. You know, I went to the Senate in 1935 from Missouri. I was elected in 1934 in a very bitter campaign. I have had a lot of bitter campaigns, as you all know. But one of the first votes I cast in the Senate in 1935 was a vote to establish the St. Lawrence Sea- way. We were defeated. But we are still fighting, and we are going to keep up that fight. Now, I was in St. Paul today, and there has been a vicious smear campaign started against Congressman McCarthy down there. They have started the same sort of campaign on Congressman Blatnik. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that has ever happened in the history of this country. It is not fair. It is not right. And I am just as sure as I stand here you are not going to let that sort of campaign have any effect on your votes for John Blatnik. Up here in Minnesota, you have a way of tying three words together that I like — Democratic-Farmer-Labor. Those three words fit together because the Democratic Party is the party of the farmer and the party of the laboring man. The secret of the Democratic Party — the thing that distinguishes the Democratic Party — is that it has a deep feeling for the common people of this country. We are a 972 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 28 [314] party that has never been able to stand idle when people are in need or are oppressed. We do something about it. When we are writing laws, we are think- ing about human beings — about the way they live and work and raise their families. That's why the great humane measures of social security and public welfare came from the thinking of the Democratic Party. That's why farm security and rural electri- fication were dreams that the Democratic Party had — and they didn't believe in dreams, they carried them out. And being for the farmer and the work- ingman doesn't mean that the Democratic Party has to be against any other group. Not at all. That's the beauty of it. If you work in the interests of the common people, you help everybody in the country in the long run. The Republicans have always tried to drive a wedge between the farmer on the one hand and the miner and the factory worker on the other. In particular, they try to get the farmer vote by attacking labor and labor organizations. But in the last 20 years, the Democratic Party has proved that what is good for the farmers is also good for the city people, and what helps the city worker is also good for the farmer. Since 1932, wages have just about quad- rupled. Now I wonder if that has hurt any- body? Has that hurt any of you because your wages were quadrupled ? On the con- trary, it means that the farmers and the city factories alike have a rich market, and everybody is better off. Now the income of the average farmer has increased 10 times since 1932. I wonder if that's been bad for anybody? I think it's quite the opposite. It means that the rural areas of America are a rich market, too, for the products of the mines and the factories. This system of mutual prosperity is broader than just a farmer-labor prosperity. When the farmers and the workingmen do well, then the insurance agent, the grocery store owner, and everybody else who has something to sell can count on having custo- mers. That's just plain commonsense. Why anybody wants to think about helping any other party than the Democratic Party is more than I can understand. That's the reason I am out working for them. Now even though the executives of most big cor- porations attack our programs, these same corporations are making the highest profits in the history of the country. Everybody in the country has a stake in everybody else's prosperity. And you folks here in Minnesota have been among the first to recognize it, with your basic idea of farmer-labor unity in politics. And I hope you will continue that from now on. You can sum it all up in a phrase from this atomic age: Prosperity is a chain re- action. Remember that: Prosperity is a chain reaction. In 20 years the Democratic Party has learned how to use the powers of govern- ment to keep this chain reaction going. We believe in prosperity for all the people, and we know how to get it. The question you can't help but ask is this: When the Democratic Party has brought unparalleled prosperity, why do they hate us so? Why are the steel executives so bitter in their swanky clubs? Why are the million- aires so vindictive against the party that keeps their business good? Why have they hated and abused Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman? Why are they willing to spend millions of dollars to defeat Adlai Stevenson and the Democratic Party in this campaign ? That's what they're doing. But I'll tell you right now it's not going to work. With all their money, they're not going to beat Adlai Stevenson. I remember back in 1948, every special privilege organization was against the Presi- dent of the United States but the people, and we licked them to a standstill. And we are going to do it again. 973 [314] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents Now I think I can tell you why they hate us — why they are spending all that money. It's because in that great election of 1932 we reestablished an old American principle of government — one that had almost gotten lost in close to a century of predominantly Republican rule. We reestablished the principle that the people — people like you folks right here tonight — and not just the privileged few were going to run this country. Each of you was going to get just as much consideration, and have the same rights, as the richest man who con- tributed to the Republican Party. That was the meaning of the election in 1932, when we made Franklin Roosevelt President of the United States. Workingmen were going to be allowed to organize, and their representatives were going to be heard in our legislative halls. Government was going to pay attention to their need for steady jobs, and for security, in this complex new industrial society. Farmers were going to be heard, too, and they were going to be given some protec- tion against depression and crop failure and against the market manipulators who used to get rich from the farmers' labors. And still those manipulators are trying to get special legislation through the Congress to defeat the farmers again. And I'll say to you, if any farmer votes the Republican ticket this year, as I said in 1948, he ought to have his head examined. The minorities in this country — the Negroes, the foreign-born — were going to be heard, too, and they were going to be treated as Americans ought to be treated. That was a revolution that took place in 1932, when the common man came into his own at last. It was a peaceful, wholesome, constructive revolution. And thank God the Democratic Party had the genius to guide a peaceful revolution, or we would have had the other kind. But to all the people who lost their special privileges, their preferred position, their right to exploit the farmer and the working- man — Franklin Roosevelt became a symbol of their loss. That's why they hated him. I am proud to have followed in his footsteps. And that's why they have heaped abuse on me. I don't think there's anything mean in the dictionary that is possible to be said, that hasn't been said about me. It hasn't hurt me much, as you can see. I am still giving them something to abuse me about, and I am going to continue that until I die because I am going to be a Democrat as long as I live. Make no mistake as to what they are after when they shout, "It's time for a change." They want to rule the country again and get back those special privileges. Now, I honestly don't think the Republi- can candidate for President understands all this. He was in the Army all during the 1920's and the 1930's, when this great struggle was going on. And he hasn't had much opportunity to learn how our economy and our Government work. I wonder if he's asked the millionaires who are financing his campaign what they expect to get out of it? I just wonder if he has asked them that question? I'll bet you a dollar and a half he hasn't. Now I am going to tell you a few things that some of them expect to get out of it. The oil millionaires expect to get some- thing. First, they expect to get control of the immensely rich offshore oil reserves that are owned by all the people of the United States, including all you people in this audience to- night. On that question, the Republican presidential candidate has already committed himself. Under pressure from the oil lobby, he has promised to sign a bill giving to three States the oil lands that the Supreme Court has said belong to everybody in the United States, including the people in Minnesota. That transaction would make Teapot Dome look like chicken feed. Now he didn't even consult you folks who own that property. I vetoed a most vicious bill that would have given all your rights away. He'll have an opportunity to veto it, if he gets to be Presi- 974 Harry S. Truman, i%2 Oct. 28 [314] dent — which I hope he won't — and I don't think you are going to let him. He won't veto it. If he gets the votes in those three Coastal States by that kind of deal, people like you ought to see to it that he loses ten times as many votes everywhere else in the coun- try. And that's just what's going to hap- pen to him, and he's not going to get those three States, either. I have got a mighty good friend in Texas by the name of Sam Ray- burn. And he told me that there are 5 mil- lion people in Texas that don't own any oil wells and have no chance of getting any oil wells, and don't own any cattle ranches; and they're going to vote the Democratic ticket. Now, see what happens in Texas! The electric power millionaires expect to get something out of a Republican adminis- tration, too. They expect to get control of all the transmission lines that carry power from Government-owned dams, including those that service REA cooperatives. They expect to get monopoly control of all the remaining good power sites on the country's rivers. Their spokesmen have even started the propaganda mills churning to get the exist- ing public power dams turned over to the power companies. Now the National Association of Manufac- turers and the other big business organiza- tions expect something from the Republicans. They expect to get out from under the anti- trust laws. They expect laws which will break the power of the labor unions. The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the Re- publican 80th Congress, was only their first step. They have a lot of other steps in mind — including a whole range of punitive antilabor measures they tried to put across during that horrible "do-nothing" 80th Congress. Representative Hartley intro- duced them and one of his chief lieutenants was a Representative by the name of Nixon, who is now the Republican candidate for Vice President. If the National Association of Manufac- turers can get its way, antiunion employers will be in a position to break the unions. Then we'll be back where we were in the 1920's. The worst employers would set up the wage scale, and the workingman will either have to take it or lose his job to a scab. Is that what you want? Well, the National Association of Manu- facturers is going to be badly disappointed, of course, when the Democrats win this elec- tion, as they are going to. Now the grain speculators expect something out of the Re- publican Party. You see, I am telling Ike what he is going to have to do if he ever gets to be President. They hope to tax the farmer cooperatives out of business. They have tried it time and again since I have been President. They ex- pect to see the Government's price support operations and grain storage program modi- fied to give them a better crack at the farmer. They got a large part of what they wanted from that Republican "do-nothing" 80th Congress. That Congress wrote the "sliding scale" formula for price supports, and denied to the Government the right to acquire stor- age facilities. The Democratic 81st. Con- gress upset both those deals, but the specula- tors who have powerful representation in the Congress know that their awful deals can always be made again, if they can get control of the Congress. And that is what they want. They have got people now who are doing everything they possibly can to put the cooperatives out of business. They want to get absolute control so that they can skin the farmer like they used to back in the 1920's. We are not going to let them do it. I know you are not going to let them do it. Now there's a lot at stake for the million- aires, too, if another set of Andy Mellon tax laws can be written. There's a great deal at stake for them if they can get Republicans who see things their way on the Federal Power Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the great other regulatory bodies which have been set up to protect the people of this country. These are the reasons that millions and 975 [314] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents millions of dollars are flowing into coffers of the Republican Party. And I want to tell you one thing, it's not money that wins elections, it's people who win elections. In 1948 the Republican coffers were bulging and burst- ing with money. In 1948 we didn't have money enough, sometimes, to get the whistle- stop train out of the station. But who won that election? The people won that elec- tion. And you're going to win this one, too! Maybe the Republican candidate for President doesn't understand what all of his backers are after. I am sure he doesn't. Or maybe he just thinks the same way they do, as he has shown on so many of the issues. There's a lot at stake in questions like these, and if you elect Republicans you'll find it out over a 4-long-year period. The Republican Party's long-established policy of running the Government in the interests of big business is bad enough just in itself. But it's doubly bad because those policies are bound to put this country into another Republican depression sooner or later. The Republican candidate for President keeps getting angry when I say things like that. He says his party has no intention of putting this country into a depression. Well, I have never said he was going to do it deliberately, right after January 20. I said, and I mean, that a depression is just the natural outcome of their kind of economics. And I'm going to prove it to you. During the 1920's, the Republican Party wrote its tax laws, its tariff laws, its oil laws, and all the other laws so as to help big busi- ness. There was some reasoning behind these policies. Many shortsighted people honestly believed that, if big business got along all right, enough wealth and income would trickle down to the rest of the popula- tion to keep the system going. Well, my friends, it didn't work, and now we know why. We now know that during all that decade of the Republican 1920's, a great concentration of wealth and income took place. By 1929, 1 percent of the popu- lation was getting 14 percent of the national income, after taxes. During what we used to call the booming twenties, all the increase in income was at the top 5 percent of the population. The mass of the population — the 95 percent — experienced an actual decline in income. When that concentration of wealth and income that the Republicans fostered had reached a certain point, the money just couldn't be spent. The people who had the most money simply couldn't spend it. The people who needed things didn't have the money to buy. So buying declined, produc- tion declined, investment declined, and we had another type of chain reaction down- ward— a reaction that lasted until the bot- tom of the pit was reached in 1932. Now then, the Democratic Party came in and reversed the whole chain reaction. We recognized that the key to national prosperity is the income and the purchasing power of the 95 percent of the population — the farmer, the laborer, the white collar worker and the small businessman. We got results. By 1948 the lower 99 per- cent of the population had an income more than twice as high as in 1929. The income of the top 1 percent went up only a little bit. But that spread the purchasing power the way it had to be spread. Prosperity can now exist and be maintained. But here's what upsets the Republicans. The top 1 percent of the population has been getting only 6 percent of the national in- come, instead of 14 percent. And while in 1929 there were 513 in- dividuals with incomes of a million dollars, in 1948 there were only 149. Now, tomorrow the Republican papers all over the country will tell people that I've been up in Hibbing, Minnesota, saying nasty things about millionaires. They will even say that I picked a safe place, where I wasn't apt to find a single millionaire in the audience. But, my friends, the Democratic Party isn't really mad at millionaires. We don't 976 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 28 [314] hate anybody. We don't care if people are rich, so long as the concentration of wealth doesn't wreck the economy. But we do know two facts. One of them the Republicans proved in the 1920's — that policies which help only the rich, which bring about too great a concentration of wealth and income, end in a crash and a de- pression. The other fact is one the Demo- crats have proved since 1932 — that real pros- perity can only exist when it rests on the solid base of prosperous farmers and fully-em- ployed, well-paid workingmen. When I say that a return to Republican policies is sure to bring a depression, I'm simply talking economics. The Republican candidate might turn out to have the best intentions in the world, I just don't know about that — and I don't think anybody else does. But I do know that the policies of an Old Guard Republican Congress will lead us as surely to a depression as they did in that dreadful decade of the logo's. When you go to the polls on November the 4th, think about the big issues, the real issues. First, think about what party is best able to maintain prosperity in the United States. Second, think about which party is the most deeply committed to building up the strength of the free world to stop Commu- nist aggression and prevent a third world war. Third, think about which party believes most truly in civil liberties, and equal rights for all our people. On all three of these great and funda- mental issues, your choice can only be the Democratic Party — which has shown by ac- tion what it believes and what it does. The Democratic Party is proud to present to you a candidate for President who will be a superb leader in attaining these objectives. He is a man of long experience in civil gov- ernment. In 4 years as Governor of a great Midwestern State, and before that in vari- ous Federal posts, he has learned to under- stand the conflicting pressures and the inter- ests that a President must deal with. He be- lieves in the true equality of human beings. He believes deeply in the policies that have made this country the leader of the free world alliance. He has not found it either necessary or expedient to compromise those policies in his campaign. In short, Governor Stevenson is a man in the finest tradition of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party. In capacity, in understanding, in experience, he measures up to the need of our great country in these times. So, to everyone in this audience, to every- one listening in tonight, I say make your vote count. Get out your friends and neighbors all through the Iron Range, all through St. Louis County, all through Minnesota. Get them to go to the polls and use a little judg- ment. I have been going around over this country trying to get people to think, trying to get people to understand just exactly what is at stake in this present campaign. It is the most important campaign, for a policy in this country that will mean 20 more years of prosperity, than any campaign we have had since the Civil War. And I ask you to think. I ask you to think about the welfare of the free world. Think about the greatest Nation in the history of the world — this United States of America; and finally come right down to brass tacks and think about exactly what it means to you. If you will just think about those things, if you will study the record — if you will study the Republican record in Congress — that is where you will find out what they will do — study the Democratic record in Congress — and then my friends, if you turn out the biggest vote in the history of Minne- sota, I know that victory will go to the Democratic Party and its great leader. We will have Adlai Stevenson of Illinois in the White House, and we will have good gov- ernment for another 4 years. note: The President spoke at 8:02 p.m. in the Memorial Auditorium, Hibbing, Minn. During his remarks he referred to his daughter Margaret; Orville L. Freeman, Democratic candidate for Gov- ernor, Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, William E. 977 [314] Oct. 28 Public Papers of the Presidents Carlson, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Representatives John A. Blatnik and Eugene J. Mc- Carthy, all of Minnesota; Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Fred A. Hartley, Jr., Representative from New Jersey, 1929-49; and Senator Richard M. Nixon, former Representative from California and Republican candidate for Vice President. The address was broadcast. 315 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Iowa and Illinois. October 29, 1952 [ 1 . ] Waterloo, Iowa ( Rear platform, 9:10 a.m.) You know, I certainly do appreciate this turnout, and I hope it means this town is going to be as good to Adlai Stevenson as it was to me 4 years ago when I was running for office. You know, I had a personal and kindly feeling — you know, when I went to the farm, after being educated in the high school in Independence, Missouri, I had a little experience in the bank in Kansas City. So about 1906 I went back to the farm, and my father and brother and I ran that farm for many, many years. My brother and sis- ter and I still own it. And we bought our first manure spreader from Waterloo, Iowa, in 1906. I heard Bill Bryan make a state- ment, one time, at a country meeting. They didn't have any platform for old Bill to stand on, so they wheeled out a manure spreader, and he said that was the first time he ever made a speech from the Republican platform. I understand that the Republican vice presidential candidate was here in Waterloo just a week or so ago. I have been told that the trend has been strongly Democratic ever since. Now I would be delighted to have Mr. Nixon continue his campaign in our behalf, but I am afraid there isn't time enough left for him to let all the voters find out just exactly what he is like. Besides, I want to be sure that the people of this country understand all the real issues in the campaign. Next Tuesday, the voters are to participate in the most important election, in my opin- ion, since the Civil War. They are to decide whether the progressive programs of the New and the Fair Deals are to continue to 978 bring the country the greatest prosperity in its history. If the reactionary Old Guard now running the Republican campaign and the Republican candidate get into power in Washington, you can't count on them to keep the country prosperous. They are against 'measures that are of direct benefit to the farmers and to the workingmen; and you can't count on them to keep us out of the danger of a general war. We are in a fight to stay out of world war III, but if we follow the Old Guard Repub- licans as they vote in Congress, we would lose our allies, and we would be face to face with the Russians, all alone. We just can't put ourselves in that position. You can see that the Republicans never learn anything. Ever since 1932 the Republican Old Guard has been voting against progress — progress in the mutual aid programs. And that story never changes. Take farm price supports. The farmers in this area are bringing in a record corn crop this year, and the Demo- cratic farm price support program will estab- lish a floor for corn prices at f 1.60 a bushel. But over half of the House Republicans this year voted against this price support level. And if Senator Taft has his way — and will if the Republican candidate for President is elected — the price support will go down to $1.18 a bushel under the sliding scale provi- sion invented by that awful "do-nothing" 80th Congress. Take the country's labor laws. The American workingman gained security and higher wages through the Wagner Act. But the 80th Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which is a constant threat to the gains the workers have made under the New Deal and the Fair Deal. The Taft-Hartley Act is Harry S. Truman, ig$2 Oct. 29 [315] another invention of that Republican 80th Congress. And believe it or not, the Republican plat- form this year brags about the accomplish- ments of that 80th Congress, and endorses the Taft-Hartley law. It says we should set parity in the marketplace. Now, what does that mean? What do you think it means? It shows you how the Republicans would act if they obtained control of the Government in this election. You can't expect anything better from the Republicans when it comes to foreign policy. Our troops are fighting in Korea today. They are fighting in Korea to keep war away from our own borders, to prevent having to fight in Waterloo, Iowa. They are fighting to keep an attack on one country from de- veloping into another world war. So far, that is what we have done. We will finish the job and put down this danger in Korea without plunging the whole world into war. But it's a hard struggle, and it costs us some bitter losses. We can't come through unless we help our allies and help them to defend themselves. Strong allies are an important part of our national defense. They will help prevent world conflict. They will save the lives of American soldiers. But if we let the Republican Old Guard run things, we will be left without a single ally in this struggle. The Republican Old Guard in Congress voted time and again to slash the appropriations for the very pro- grams that have strengthened the free na- tions and kept them on our side and enabled them to defend themselves. If we cut out that aid to foreign nations, we would have to fight the Russians alone. That's the fix the Republican Old Guard will put us in. All I ask the people of this country is to inform themselves on the facts. I wish you would get the record. I wish you would get the record and inform yourselves on just exactly how the votes in Congress have been by the Democrats and the Republicans. I wouldn't have to talk to you if you would do that. You owe it to yourselves to look at the voting records of both parties. Study the qualifications of all the candidates. Find out which party works in the interest of all the people and which party faces up to the responsibility of leadership for world peace. If you will just do that, I know very well what you will do. You will vote the Demo- cratic ticket on Tuesday. You will have Representatives in Congress who were just introduced to you — you will elect Herschel Loveless to be Governor of the great State of Iowa, and this country will have 4 years of good government under the leadership of John Sparkman and Adlai Stevenson. [2.] Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Rear platform, 10:30 a.m.) I appreciate very much this fine turnout here this morning. I have been greeted by crowds like this all over this great Nation, even though I am not a candidate for office in this campaign. I have made more than 180 appearances since I set out on these cam- paign trips this fall. And every day the mail pouch from Washington has brought my regular work to me as President of the United States. I do the same amount of work as if I were sitting at the desk in Washington, and do this on the side. So I have done a lot of extra work and speech-making for a man who is not run- ning for office. But I will tell you why I am working so hard in this campaign, because I consider the election that takes place next Tuesday the most important one this coun- try has had since the Civil War. I am doing everything in my power to see that the peo- ple of this country understand what the stake is in this election. I have been in the White House for 7 years now in one of the most difficult periods in the history of the country. We have had to face up to the tasks of keeping our economy sound and strong, and of avoiding a depression that has followed every war in the past. We have succeeded in that task. We have had to face up to a new threat of aggression from abroad, at a time when our people were still recovering from the 979 [315] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents great sacrifices of the Second World War. We have had to mobilize our strength at home and give help to the other free nations of the world. And we have done just that. We have had to meet armed aggression by fighting in Korea. And we are fighting there so that we won't have to fight closer to home — so we won't have to fight in San Francisco or Wichita — or Cedar Rapids. But our tasks are far from completed. We are still in danger. We have to bring this Korean conflict to an end without appease- ment, and without bringing on a general war. I believe we are going to do just that. But we won't succeed if we turn the Con- gress over to isolationists who don't see our danger, and the White House over to a man whose professional training is for war. We need courageous, f arsighted leadership to continue our fight for lasting prosperity at home, and security and peace through- out the world. All I ask is that before the people of this country cast their ballots on next Tuesday, they look at the records of both parties and both candidates, so they can choose the right leaders for the 4 tough years that are ahead of us. We cannot trust the Republican Party to keep the country prosperous. I don't believe the farmers of this country will put their trust in the Old Guard Re- publicans. These are the men who voted time after time to cripple rural electrification programs. Only this year they voted for slashes in soil conservation funds, and voted against price supports at 90 percent of parity. That's their record. Don't take my word for it — read the record and convince your- selves that your friends are not in the Re- publican Party. I don't believe the workers of this country will place their confidence in the Old Guard Republicans who put the Taft-Hardey Act on the statute books in the 80th Congress, and voted against the bill that would increase social security payments this very year. I don't believe the housewives of this coun- try will look to the Old Guard Republicans to protect their family pocketbooks. For the past 2 years these men have been wrecking price controls with crippling amendments and budget slashes every time they got a chance. I don't believe the people of this country will rely upon the statesmanship and vision of the Old Guard Republicans to keep us out of war. These are the men who have fought our efforts to strengthen the defenses of the free world against communism. They would lose us our allies. And we need allies for the purpose of preventing war and sav- ing the lives of our own men. But you are the people who must make the decision. You owe it to yourselves to study the record and the issues. Find out which party has worked for the plain, every- day people all the time, and has led the fight for world peace. If you do that, you will vote the straight Democratic ticket next Tuesday. You will send T. W. Mullaney to Congress. You will elect Herschel Loveless to be your new Gov- ernor. And this great country of ours will go on to 4 years of good government under the leadership of Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. [3.] West Liberty, Iowa (Rear platform, 11:28 a.m.) It's nice to see you — a pleasure to see you. Thank you very, very much — it is nice to see you young people. You may have guessed, I judge, the purpose of my visit. I am cam- paigning for the Democratic ticket, and I am campaigning as hard as I can because this is one of the most important elections in the history of the country. I am out trying to get you people to do a little thinking for yourselves. I am trying to get you young people to understand that we are faced with either turning the clock back, or going for- ward; and I want you to do a little thinking on this subject. During the past 20 years we have made great social and economic progress in this United States of ours. This has been possible because you had a National Government that 980 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 29 [315] adopted specific programs to help bring it about — -programs like farm price supports, minimum wage laws, social security, soil con- servation, and rural electrification. The Republican Party has fought us on all these programs every step of the way. They have always been against the New Deal and the Fair Deal when it came to voting, al- though they are inclined to give you a little doubletalk on the subject when the cam- paign for election comes around. They be- gin to get very good then, and want to love all the people. But the real attitude of the Republicans slips out sometimes, even in their campaign oratory. At their convention in Chicago last July, Senator Bricker said that the last vestiges of the New Deal and the Fair Deal must be destroyed. The Re- publicans have some plans for doing that, too. For one thing, they are talking about selling the Government's big public power projects and other Government projects to private companies. The magazine U.S. News and World Re- port tells about this plan in its issue of Sep- tember 26, and it says "it may get a try if the Republicans control the White House and the Congress after next January 20th." Be- lieve it or not, they are even talking about selling out the post office. I don't know about the post office, but I do know what will happen to your rates for electric power, if the private power monopoly ever gets its hands on the great Government dams. The rates will go up in a hurry. One thing these birds are sure to go after, if they get a chance, is your REA co-ops. You know the private power companies al- ways have been against REA, and whatever the private power companies are against, most of the Republicans are always against it, too. The Republican candidate for President has been talking about removing what he calls, "the sticky hands of Federal bureau- crats" from the REA co-ops. Now I don't know what he means by that, but perhaps he thinks it would be better to turn your co-ops over to the tender mercies of the private power companies. Now I believe the Old Guard Republicans in Congress are quite sincere in their opposi- tion to the Fair Deal. I think they really would set out to destroy all we have done for the last 20 years, if they had half a chance. I have just given you one example of how that would work, and I could give you many more. The result of the whole business would be to take us right back to the policies that brought on the Great Depression, the last time the Republicans controlled the National Government. I want you to remember that. I want you to think about it. I want you to think in your own interests. I am just out here trying to get you to think, trying to get you to study what the issues are, trying to get you to in- vestigate the records of these people in Congress. Investigate the records of the Democrats, and see whether they have been for the farmer, the laborer, and for the small busi- nessman. Investigate the record of the Re- publicans, and I think you will find they have voted against every measure that has been in the interests of these very people I am talking about. That's all I am asking you to do. If you remember this: We are in the midst of a great struggle for peace. We cannot win this struggle unless we maintain our prosperity here at home. The Russians know this. That is why they have been hoping we would have in this country another Great Depression. That is why it is so important for you to keep your Government in the hands of a party that shows it knows how to keep the country prosperous. I want you to think about these things. Think about which party has proved itself by results. Think about which party has done most for your interests, and for the country's welfare. When you think about these things I know what you will do. You will go to the polls 55-672- 981 [315] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents on election day, and you will elect Herschel Loveless as Governor, you will send Clair Williams to Congress — and you will elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [4.] Davenport, Iowa (Municipal Sta- dium, 12:25 p.m.) Mr. Chairman: I am very happy to be back in Iowa today. Three weeks ago, when I spoke at Shenan- doah, I only had time to spend one day in this great State. But I promised myself then that I'd get back here before the cam- paign ended. You see, as a Missourian, I can claim you Iowans as neighbors. And I like to get around and see my neighbors, particularly when I have something on my mind which I think you ought to know. Now the thing that is on my mind today is the election coming on the 4th of No- vember. That's next Tuesday, just 6 days away. This election will decide who sits in the White House for the next 4 years- And it will decide which party controls the Congress for the next 2 years. My friends, it's going to make a lot of dif- ference how this election comes out — a lot of difference to you personally, each and every single one of you. Let me give you a very concrete illustra- tion of what's at stake for you in this elec- tion. This has to do with something close to home for everybody around here. That's the corn crop here in Iowa. The corn crop this year in Iowa is going to be a big one. And that's a very good thing. Corn is the Nation's principal feed grain and we need a good supply of corn always. But we also know that a big corn crop puts a heavy downward pressure on corn prices. We have learned, through years of experience that when the farmers turn out big crops and provide the Nation with abundant supplies, their prices generally fall. We can feel fortunate that this is not go- ing to happen this year. It will not happen because the Democratic Party has protected the farmers through price supports. Our price support program serves as a safety net to catch farm prices and keep them from falling to dangerously low levels. It helps to stabilize farm markets and to pre- vent the Nation's economy from falling out of balance. That's what the price support program is going to do for the corn crop this year. It's going to hold the corn price at a level of $1.60 a bushel for every farmer who partic- ipates in the corn loan program. Without the support program, there is no telling how low corn prices might go. For it is expected that the crop this year will be one of the larg- est in history — second only to the huge crop of 1948. Now, I'm telling you this story for a very good reason. I'm telling it because it is a very good example of how the Democratic Party has been using the powers of govern- ment for the benefit and welfare of all the people. This program was brought into being by the Democrats, over the opposition of the Republican Party. And its very existence would be endangered by a Republican vic- tory on November 4th. The Republican candidate for President has been traveling all over the Midwest try- ing to pull the wool over the farmers' eyes. He says the Republican Party stands behind the price support laws on the books. And he says specifically this includes the present amendment to the basic farm act assuring price supports at 90 percent of parity throughout 1954. Well, that's fine talk. But, my friends, what are the facts? I want you young men over there, who are having so much fun being discourteous to the President, to listen to this, because it will be a lesson to you. The Republican Party had the opportunity to stand behind the support law, just a few weeks before the Republican candidate was 982 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 29 [315] nominated last July. It stood behind it, all right — a mighty long way behind. The re- corded votes in the House of Representatives show that a majority of Republicans voted against continuing supports at 90 percent of parity. As usual, it was the Democratic Party that pushed this legislation through for the benefit of the farmer. Now the Republican Party had another op- portunity at its convention in Chicago to stand behind price supports at 90 percent of parity. But it didn't take that stand. The Republican platform just talks vaguely about "aiming" at fair farm prices "in the market- place." The platform doesn't even attempt to say what the Republicans would do to maintain fair prices. And that Republican platform, by the way, is the best piece of gobbledegook I have ever read. I have been reading platforms for 40 years, and that one caps them all for saying nothing. As usual, it was the Democratic platform that spelled out a firm position on price sup- ports, stating specifically that the Democratic Party would maintain price supports at 90 percent of parity. Senator Taft — who is the Republican leader in Congress — says he's against price supports at 90 percent of parity. He said that in New York, on the day the Re- publican candidate for President surrendered to him. Just as you might suspect, Taft once again endorsed the discredited "sliding scale" enacted by that Republican 80th Con- gress— the "sliding scale" which would have allowed farm prices to sink to 60 percent of parity. I think I ought to tell you that if the "sliding scale" provision were in effect at this time, under present supply conditions, the support price for corn would not be $1.60 a bushel — it would be $1.18 a bushel. Now, which is best for you, Democratic policy or Republican policy? Furthermore, Republican opposition is aimed not only at price supports. The majority of the Republicans have fought al- most every one of our great farm programs, in general and in detail, from 1933 right down to the present time. The first Agricultural Adjustment Act — passed less than 2 weeks after President Roosevelt took office — was opposed by two- thirds of the Republicans in the House of Representatives. In 1938 Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted 5 to 1 against the Agricul- tural Act of that year. In 1939 House Republicans voted 7 to 1 against appropriations for parity payments. In 1943 House Republicans voted 14 to 1 to obstruct farm price supports and other measures. In that same year House Republicans voted 16 to 1 to kill the crop insurance program. All of you remember what happened when the Republicans gained power in the 80th Congress. They cut into the price support program in four different ways. And the Republicans in the House voted to kill the agricultural conservation program alto- gether. Now the moral of this story is very sim- ple— and it has a direct bearing on the choice you make when you go to the polls next Tuesday. The moral is this: You can trust the Demo- cratic Party to do the things that need to be done for the welfare and prosperity of farm- ers, workers, businessmen — everybody in the country. But you cannot trust the Repub- lican Party to do anything for the common man. What is true of farm programs is also true of other domestic programs aimed at main- taining general prosperity. It is also true of our other great programs — those aimed at world peace. You can trust the Democratic Party to carry on sound programs for peace. But honestly I believe you cannot trust the Republican Party to lead us toward peace. We are engaged in a hard and dangerous struggle to check communism and to prevent another world war. Communism turned to open aggression in Korea, and we had to stop 983 [315] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents it there. If we had not stopped communism in Korea, it would have swept out across the other free lands of the world. We are fighting in Korea, my friends, so that we won't have to fight right here, in our own country, against invasion. Now, we can win this fight, and prevent world war III, if we don't give up as the Communists want us to do. We can win if we have strong defenses and strong allies to share the bur- dens with us. We must have strong alliances among the free nations if we are to prevent world war III and save American lives. Now the Republican Old Guard does not seem to understand what terrible danger the world is in. They talk as if the fighting in Korea was unimportant. They think we can get security cheap. They seem to believe that we can get along without allies. That is the way they vote. They vote to cut down on the aid our allies need to defend themselves. They promise great reductions in our own military spending. My friends, I want to say to you that these men are positively blind. If we let them run the country I am certain we would face far graver danger of a general war. I urge upon you, do not trust your wel- fare to that kind of leadership. Do not trust them with your welfare as a farmer, or a worker, or an independent businessman. Do not trust them with your rights and liberties as citizens of this free America of ours. Above all, do not trust them with our defense against Communist aggression. Fortunately, my friends, you have an alter- native— a good alternative. You can cast your vote for the Democratic Party, which has proved by its record that it cares about your welfare and will take constructive action in your interests. You can cast your vote for a presidential candidate who has proved beyond a doubt, before and during this campaign, that he has courage and wisdom and real understanding of our country's problems and the great is- sues facing this free world of ours. Think about your choice, my friends. I would advise you to give it a lot of thought. I would advise you to study the record of these things I have been telling you, because it is up to you to use your head on election day. Give it some thought for your own interests. Give the welfare of this country we all love so much the thought that is neces- sary to keep it like we have it. Remember that the decision is yours to make, but once you've made it, you must live with it for 4 long years. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, vote in your own interest. Vote for what helps you. Vote for what is best for the country and for the world. If you do that, I have no doubt about the outcome of the election. You will vote to send Clair Williams to the Congress, where he will represent you well. You will vote for Herschel Loveless for Governor of this great State of yours. And you will vote to send to the White House, that able, progressive Governor of your neighbor State, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. [5.] Moline, Illinois (Rear platform, 1 102 p.m.) I appreciate most highly this reception which you have given me. I didn't expect to be received so vociferously and so cordially. I have had a grand trip today, starting up north and coming all the way down. And what impresses me, and what I can't under- stand is why so many people will come out to see a "has been." I'm not running for anything. But I guess you know the reason I am here. I am trying to help get the Demo- cratic ticket elected next Tuesday. As a mat- ter of fact, I am working harder in this cam- paign than I did in 1948 in my own behalf. I know this has troubled a lot of people — most of them are Republicans. They are worried sick, they are crying their eyes out. You know, they are crying their eyes out and 984 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 29 [315] trying to call me everything under the sun. And they can't find anything new to call me — it has already been said. I am putting my heart and soul into this campaign for one reason. This election next week, in my opinion, is the most important one for the people of the country since the Civil War. World peace and the welfare of our country hang in the balance. That is just what is involved — make no mistake about it. I have been traveling over this great Na- tion during the past few weeks, and I can tell you that this country is in very good shape. You wouldn't know that, though, from listening to the Republican campaign oratory — and what they tell you is just not so. Today we have 62 million jobs in Amer- ica, and our national production is $340 bil- lion a year. We have a real prosperity, and this is due to the sound programs that have been provided under 20 years of New Deal and Fair Deal management. The Democratic Party believes in seeing that everyone gets a fair deal and a fair share of the national income — farmers, workers, businessmen, everyone. In this way, pur- chasing power is maintained and our produc- tion system keeps going at a steady pace. Take the farmer, for example. When he is prosperous, he buys farm machinery and equipment and other things. That means employment and good times here in Moline, and all over the country as well. Some of you can remember how things were 20 years ago. The farmer was broke, and you people in Moline had unemployment and tough times. Today, thanks to Democratic leadership, we have price supports, soil conservation, farm credit, and a lot of other things that helped the farmer. And that helps you. But the Republican Party has fought most of our work for the farmers. They have fought it just like they fought social secu- rity, they fought minimum wages, they fought unemployment compensation, they fought the Wagner Act. Just this spring, a majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against continuing price supports at 90 per- cent of parity. The Republican Party just can't understand progress. They don't realize that you get prosperity by improving the welfare of all the people — all the com- mon people, just like I am. I am going to need a job after the 20th, that's the reason I want the Democrats in there. The Republicans have been just as short- sighted when it comes to a sound foreign policy. We are engaged in a great struggle for peace. One part of that struggle is mili- tary. That means defenses, and fighting against aggression. The other part is civil- ian. It means helping other countries, through economic aid and other assistance, to keep strong. If a friendly country goes bankrupt, or suffers economic collapse, it can't stand up against communism and stay free. You ought to bear that in mind — that is most important. Over the last 6 years, in Europe and Asia, we have helped dozens of friendly countries in this way. This is a vital part of our na- tional defense. By making other countries strong enough to stand up against commu- nism, we are working to save the lives of American boys. This part of our struggle for peace is clearly at stake in this election. The Old Guard Republicans are against helping other nations in this way. And they will control the Congress if the Republicans are elected. They have shown by their voting records that they do not understand how important other nations are to our national defense. In 1949 the Republican Congressmen voted almost 2 to 1 against the military aid pro- gram, including military aid to the Republic of Korea. In 1950 they voted 3 to 1 against point 4. In 195 1 Republican Senators voted overwhelmingly, six different times, to crip- ple economic aid for Western Europe. And just this year, three-fourths of the Repub- lican Senators voted disastrous slashes in the economic and military aid to our allies. I urge you to inform yourselves on these 985 [315] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents issues. All I am out for is to get you people to do some thinking. I want you to think for yourselves, and when you do that and study the record, you can't do but one thing. Look at the voting records of both parties. Compare the qualifications of each candidate. Find out which party has always worked in the interest of all the people, and which party has faced up to the responsibilities of world leadership in the mid-20th century. If you do, I have no fear about the future of this country. You will vote the straight Democratic ticket, and you will elect a Demo- cratic Governor to succeed your good Demo- cratic Governor who is going to be the next President. You will send Democrats to the Congress who will look after your interests, and this Nation will work for peace and prosperity for the next 4 years under the leadership of that outstanding American, that great Gover- nor of the great State of Illinois — Adlai Stevenson. [6.] Chicago, Illinois (Negro War Me- morial, 5:02 p.m.) Congressman Dawson, Mr. Sengstac\e, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen: I thank you. Thank you very, very much for this scroll. I wish I deserved all the things you said about me. All I can say is I will try to live up to them. I am glad to be in Chicago's South Side this afternoon. This is an important anniversary. It was exactly 5 years ago to- day that the President's Committee on Civil Rights handed me its report. That report was courageous, and it was honest. It was prepared by men and women who sincere- ly wanted to make life better for all of us — and that is exactly what they did. The civil rights progress that has been made in the last 5 years is the greatest since emancipation. There has been a great work- ing of the American conscience, and what started it all is the civil rights report. I am proud of it, and I am proud of the Com- mittee— but more than anything else, I am proud of the American people. They have taken the recommendations of that Com- mittee to heart, and they are making them work. And today we are a better and stronger country because of it. We are standing beside a monument to the brave Negro soliders of the famous old 8th Regiment of the Illinois National Guard. In the First World War the 8th of Illinois proved its valor and gallantry on the field of batde. It was a much-decorated regiment, and we can all be very proud of the brave men to whom this monument is dedicated. The 8th of Illinois was a part of the old segregated National Guard. Today the Illi- nois National Guard is racially integrated — thanks to your great Governor, Adlai Steven- son. All the Armed Forces of our entire active Federal service are rapidly being inte- grated. In the new integrated Armed Forces, the old 8th of Illinois has become the 178th Regimental combat team. It is not easy to wipe out segregation and discrimination in our Armed Forces. For- tunately, I have had the help of one of the best Presidential committees that ever was assembled — the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. One of the members of that Committee was John Sengstacke, who is here today, and I want to tell you he did a mighty fine job on that Committee — and I appreciate it. Any member of that Committee can tell you some hard facts about segregation in the Armed Forces. It is wonderful how some of our generals go around talking about what they would do with one stroke of the pen if they got into the White House. What in the world were they doing when we had mil- lions of men under arms and they were in command ? I would like an answer to that. The Republican candidate for President once told a committee of the Senate that a certain degree of segregation is necessary be- cause Negro soldiers can't stand the competi- tion with white soldiers. Today, our 986 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 29 [315] soldiers and sailors and airmen all over the world, but particularly in Korea, are proving that the Republican candidate didn't know what he was talking about — and there are a lot of other things he doesn't know what he is talking about, too. The Democratic candidate — your own Governor, Adlai Stevenson — had already learned the truth about race relations from his service in the Navy. In the days before Adlai Stevenson was Assistant to the Sec- retary of the Navy, Negroes were assigned only to the messmen's branch. Adlai Steven- son helped open up additional assignments to Negroes. That was the beginning of the great change in the Navy. While we were still in the war, the Waves and Spars were opened to Negro women. In rapid order, the Navy assigned Negroes to auxiliary ships of the fleet, integrated the training schools, and opened up general service assignments, including duty on combat ships without any racial differentiation whatever. At the present time, there is no segregation in the Navy or Marine Corps. The Army, too, has been moving ahead with the process of integration. Beginning in 1949 the Army opened all jobs to Negroes, opened all Army schools without racial restrictions or quotas; began to assign qualified Negroes to all types of military units, including those that were formerly all white; integrated the races in barracks and dining halls; and abolished the quota system which had limited Negroes to 10 percent of the Army's strength. Since that time rapid progress has been made. Today integration is complete in all training divisions, in all replacement training centers throughout the United States. Our three regular Army divisions here have about completed racial integration, and so have many other units of similar size. In May of this year, the Far East Com- mand completed the integration of all its forces. Our three other overseas Com- mands— the European, the Austrian, and Alaskan Commands — are progressively inte- grating their units. They are following the successful procedures used in the Far East. On the nth day of May 1949, the Depart- ment of the Air Force, following consulta- tions with the President's Committee, an- nounced a policy of equal treatment and equal opportunity. The Air Force said its objective was total conversion from segrega- tion to integration. As a measure of their success, let me tell you a few facts. In January 1949, there were 167 Air Force units that were mostly white but had some Negro personnel. In June of this year, the number of mixed units had increased to 3,466. That is an improvement of 20-fold, or 2,000 percent in 3 J4 years. My friends, these are big steps. They are forward steps, and they have not been done by magic. They have been done by getting down to the hard work of changing deeply rooted habits and procedures. You have an important decision to make next Tuesday. You have to ask yourself which one of the two parties and which of the two candidates for President would be best for the country. This year the Democratic Party offers to the people the great Governor of your own State of Illinois — Adlai Stevenson. He is the finest new presidential candidate offered by either political party for many, many years. He has had long experience in public af- fairs and government. He has been a great administrator of a great State. He will make one of the greatest Presidents we ever had. Running with him is John Sparkman of Alabama. Together with your own Con- gressman Dawson, he helped put together the Democratic platform here in Chicago last July. That platform is the strongest civil rights stand ever taken by a major political party in this country. It favors effective Federal action on civil rights, including FEPC; and it urges a change in the rules of procedure in Congress so that a handful of men can't stand in the way when the others want to vote. John Sparkman helped 987 [315] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents write that platform. He has pledged him- self to support it. He is an honorable man and will honor that pledge. Now Stevenson and Sparkman will need sound men to support them in the Congress. Your own Congressman Dawson has made a great name for himself in Washington. As vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he sits in the highest councils of the Democratic Party. In addition, he has been the chairman of one of the most im- portant committees in the Congress, the Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments — and there isn't a better chair- man in the Congress than Bill Dawson. The people of Illinois are giving up a great Governor in order to get a great Presi- dent. They must replace him in Springfield with an able and conscientious administra- tor. You have such a man in Sherwood Dixon, and I know you are going to elect him to be your next Governor. He is right now transacting the business of the State, and that is the reason he is not here. But he is like I am — he is blessed with a perfect helper in the form of Mrs. Dixon. I am one up on him — I have two helpers. My friends, we are standing beside a monument to soldiers who fought in the old Army, the Army that followed the old segre- gated customs from days gone by. We owe it to them to put a man in the White House who will finish the job of integrating the armed services of our country. Adlai Stevenson helped start this process in our armed services when he was in the Navy Department. He has continued the job as Governor of Illinois. He doesn't do it to get votes — he does it because it is the right thing to do. That is the kind of man you want for President of the United States. The Republican candidate for President says he will take care of the civil rights problem by calling a conference of the Gov- ernors. I wonder who he would make chairman of that conference? How would you like his breakfast partner Governor Jim Byrnes of South Carolina — or his political allies in Governor Shivers of Texas, the head of the Shivercrats — or Governor Kennon of Louisiana, who is the top Dixiecrat? I hope you are going to give this election a lot of thought, my friends. Our progress of the last few years must continue. You want a man in the White House you can trust, one who knows how to get things done, one who is not afraid to stand up and fight for your rights. Think it over — and I know that you will vote to make Adlai Stevenson the next Presi- dent of the United States on November the 4th. note: In the course of his remarks on October 29 the President referred to, among others, Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Herschel C. Loveless, Demo- cratic candidate for Governor of Iowa, T. W. Mul- laney and Clair A. Williams, Democratic candidates for Representative from Iowa, Martin McCarthy, local Democratic chairman of Davenport, Iowa, Rep- resentative William L. Dawson of Illinois, John H. Sengstacke, editor and publisher of the Chicago Defender, Sherwood Dixon, Democratic candidate for Governor of Illinois, and Mrs. Dixon, and Gov- ernors James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, Allan Shivers of Texas, and Robert F. Kennon of Louisiana. 516 Address at the Hotel Sherman in Chicago. October 29, 1952 I appreciate that ovation very much, but I want you to bear in mind that there is only so much time available on these machines here, and while I like the ovation and would like to continue it all night, if you want to, I would like to get this message over, if you will allow me to do it. I appreciate what 988 you have done, however. It is very, very fine. I have been informed that people are in- quiring how they can help win this election for the Democrats. I will tell you how you can do it. Report to your local Democratic chairman. If you don't like him, report to Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 29 [316] the Stevenson-Sparkman Club chairman. Anyway, take off your coat and do something to get the voters out on election day. A voter at home is of no use to the party or the country. Now it is a very great privilege for me to be able to speak tonight in the home State of Adlai Stevenson. Once before, in an hour of crisis, the State of Illinois gave us a great President. Abra- ham Lincoln did not campaign by trumpet- ing abroad that he was more virtuous, more honest, and better fitted for leadership than the ordinary man. He presented himself as he was — a man who had tried to serve the peo'ple faithfully in his own community, and to walk humbly with his God. Those basic qualities of his character stood the test of fire in our Civil War, and saved this great Union. I feel that those same qualities of integrity and humility that made Lincoln great, are present in this other citizen of Illinois, who is now the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. He did not seek the nomination. He did not believe that a man should thrust himself forward to seize the greatest honor and the greatest responsibility that exists under our form of government. The Democratic Party turned to him spontane- ously because he was the best qualified can- didate. He was nominated without com- mitments and without any strings attached to him whatever. Here in Illinois I do not have to tell you about Adlai Stevenson's career. You know him as your Governor. You know what he has done to clean up the ad- ministration of the State Government, to replace waste and corruption with economy and honesty, to expand the health and welfare services of this great State, and to assure equal rights among all its citizens. You know that he has a deep understanding of our foreign problems — the problems of war and peace. You know that he is honest and courageous, and that he will not com- promise his principles to get votes. You know that he will not betray his friends or his ideals under political pressure. Adlai Stevenson owes nothing to me, but I shall be happy to turn the Office of the Presidency over to him on January the 20th. If I can do that, I know that I will be leaving our Government and the welfare of our country in good and competent hands. During this campaign, I have gone back and forth across the country trying to tell the people the basic issues. I have been pointing out to them the basic differences between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. I have been explaining the hard facts of our struggle for peace. I have been pointing out to the best of my ability that the Republican Party has a bad record in the past, and a bad program for the future — that the Republican candidate, while he had a good record as a military man, is not a good choice to be the civilian head of our Government. That is what I have been campaigning about, but you'd never guess it if you read the papers. When I stayed in Washington and took no part in the campaign, the Re- publican candidate and the one-party press felt free to vilify me as a traitor and a cor- ruptionist. When I replied and carried a campaign of truth around the country, their only retort was to accuse me of slander and abuse. They don't want the truth. They don't like it. It hurts too bad. The Republican leaders and the Repub- lican press are desperate in this campaign. From the beginning, they had planned to win by using the "big lie" and the "big doubt." When these tactics were exposed, there was nothing they could do but cry "foul." One of the things that the Republican candidate has said about the Democrats is that we are waging a campaign of fear. He has said that we are trying to create fear of what the Republicans would do if they were elected. I want to make this very clear. We 55-672—66^- -6.6 989 [316] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents Democrats have not tried to create any base- less fears. But I am very genuinely afraid of what the Republicans might do to this country if they were elected. I have a very profound fear of Republican policies, both in the domestic field and in the field of our foreign affairs. This fear is not groundless. This fear is based on the facts. I want other people to see this as clearly as I do. This is one of the main reasons I have been out campaigning. The issues that confront us are large and complicated. They require a lot of study and a lot of work and a lot of thought — on the part of the candidates and on the part of the people. At least, that is true on the Democratic side. We Democrats believe in taking a position on these issues, and telling the people exactly where we stand. But that does not appear to be the case on the Republican side. Judging by recent performances, a Re- publican candidate doesn't have to think about the issues. He is not expected to think about anything. And he doesn't expect his audiences to think either. But he is going to be fooled on that. Now everything is simple for a Republi- can candidate, especially if he happens to be a general! Sometimes I think it would be a lot easier to be a Republican candidate for President, than it is to be a campaigner for the Democrats. Take this issue of prosperity, for instance. We poor Democrats have to think and talk about wage rates, and take-home pay, and price supports for farmers, and income dis- tribution, and business investment — and how to keep all these things working together for a higher national output and a bigger national income. But the Republican candidate doesn't have to bother with such petty details — especially if he is a general. All he has to do is to say: "Our pledge is this: we will enlist all the resources of the Federal Government to insure that this great Nation is never again paralyzed by a great depression." And that takes care of the depression problem. You heard what the General said, didn't you? Depressions are hereby abolished! It is certainly easy for these Republicans. Now, take the problem of civil rights. That has been with us for quite a long time. We Democrats have studied it thoroughly, we have made improvements through the States, and through the activi- ties of the Federal Government. We have worked to enact fair employment practices legislation, against Republican and Dixiecrat opposition. We are going to keep on work- ing for that legislation until we get it. But we know it will be a tough fight. Of course it is going to be a tough fight. It is much easier than this, though, for the Republican candidate. He says, "I will confer with the Governors of the 48 States. I will urge them to take the leadership . . . in guaranteeing the economic rights of all our citizens. ... I will myself be at their disposal. . . . What is sorely needed to deal with the problem of race relations, to provide equal opportunities, and to end racism is. . . ." Well, what do you suppose? FEPC? Not on your life. No. He says it takes "leadership." And who will provide the leadership? You guessed it — the Republican candidate, and Governor Byrnes — the Dixiecrat Gov- ernor of South Carolina, and Governor Shivers — the Shivercrat Governor of Texas, and Governor Kennon of Louisiana — the Dixiecrat Governor of Louisiana. And if you think that's a funny kind of leadership in the fight for civil rights, you're just a low down mudslinger — like I am! But don't you see how much easier it is to be a Republican candidate? Now, let's take the problem of agricul- tural policy. Here we poor Democrats have been talk- ing and studying and planning for years about price supports, farm credit, and con- 990 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 29 [316] servation payments. While we've made tremendous progress, we admit we still haven't solved all the problems. But it's easy for a Republican candidate, especially if he is a general. All he has to do is say that he will mobilize the best brains of agriculture to work out long-range policies and programs, adding, after more of the same guff, "Most important we must be prepared to do the right thing at the right time." There you are — there you are — there's your farm program! No fuss, no mess, no dishpan hands. No questions asked — or answered. Just do the right thing at the right time. But what is the right thing and when is the right time from the Republican policy viewpoint. I don't know. I don't think the General does, either. Now take small business. The Republican candidate says, "What- ever I can do to help small business, and to provide diversified industry in each locality — that I shall do!" Applause! Cheers! Everybody goes away satisfied. You see how easy it is to be a Republican candidate. Now let's look at some harder problems. It would be hard for me — it would be hard for most of us, I believe — to make the Korean conflict a partisan political issue. I think of the fact that this whole Nation was practically unanimous on June 26, 1950, that we must stop aggression in Korea. I think how that fight has protected our be- loved country from the graver dangers of greater war and invasion. I think of the battlelines where we have not only Republi- can boys and Democratic boys fighting side by side, but men from many free countries around the globe all fighting side by side in the cause of humanity. And it is rather hard for me to make a partisan political issue out of that. But it is easy for the Republican candidate for President. He just steps right up to it, and says we are "in that war" because of the mistakes of the administration. For him it's just as simple as that. Somebody must have asked him a ques- tion about it, however, because in a speech at Detroit the other night he set out to prove that the Korean aggression was all the fault of the Democrats. That would have been hard for most people. Most people think it was due to the evil designs of the Kremlin. But it was easy for the Republican candidate. All he had to do was change the facts of history, and he did that just as easily as rolling off a log — and just as easily as he deserted General Marshall. In his speech he tried to prove that the conflict resulted from the withdrawal of our troops from Korea in 1948 and 1949, and that the State Department was solely responsible for that decision. The fact is, my friends, that he himself recommended that withdrawal in 1947. His view pre- vailed; and, in accordance with it, our troops were finally withdrawn. In his speech, he said that another great general, General Wedemeyer, had advised against withdrawing our troops from Korea, and that the administration had ignored his report and suppressed it. The facts, my friends, are just the opposite. General Wedemeyer recommended that we withdraw our troops if the Russians withdrew theirs, and that we undertake a policy of aid to Korea. His report was not ignored. It was carefully considered and virtually all its recommendations were adopted. The Republican candidate for President, in his effort to prove that the State Depart- ment was to blame for everything, took quotations out of the official records of Con- gress, and twisted and distorted them. It makes me sad when a man of whom I thought as much as I did of the General will do a lowdown trick like that in order to get votes. It is just a distortion of the facts. It is something terrible. That's the reason I am trying to put it over to you. He tried to make it appear that the Secretary of State said something that he never did say. What's more, he deliberately took some- thing that the Secretary of State had said in 1950 and made it appear that he had said it 991 [316] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents before a different committee, in 1949, 8 months earlier, for an entirely different purpose and with an entirely different result. And so far I haven't read a single editorial calling the Republican candidate a mud- slinger, and a misrepresenter of the facts. You see how much easier it is for him than it is for us ordinary Democrats. He has no more trouble changing the facts of the past than he has in settling the problems of the present. Now, what about the future? We are facing, all around the world, the great and menacing danger of Communist imperialism and its threat of war. We have moved in to stop outright aggres- sion in Korea — and we have stopped it, in a long and hard and bloody struggle. By that sacrifice, we have saved the free world and ourselves, and we ought to be proud of what our brave men have done there. And I am proud of them. But we face a continuing problem. The danger is still there — the fighting continues. There are only three possible ways to handle this problem. One is to give up, and pull out of Korea. That would be dishonorable and dangerous. It would weaken the alliance of free nations, and endanger our own national security. We won't do that. The second way is to go on from Korea to a bigger war, attacking China and Russia, expanding the theater of conflict to include Japan, the Pacific, and possibly the whole world. We have also rejected that alternative. The third way, my friends — and the right way — is to build up more support from the United Nations, as we are doing; to train and equip more Korean troops, as we are doing; and to apply every pressure to bring about an honorable truce, as we are doing. As a Nation, we will be able to bring this about if we remain united and firm in our determination to build up our defenses and see this thing through. This is a hard way to end the Korean conflict, but, my friends, it is the only way that will not involve us in far greater dangers. Now before he knew how easy it was to be a Republican candidate, the General had just as much trouble as the rest of us in find- ing a quick and easy way to end the Korean conflict. In June of this year he said, "There is no clean-cut solution to the Korean war." That is an exact quotation from General Eisenhower. But today he has found out the privileges and prerogatives of his new position. Now he can find a solution for anything. Now he can handle the Korean problem easily. Now he says, "I shall go to Korea. That is my pledge to the American people." As a Republican candidate, that appears to be all he is required to say. That's the an- swer. Nobody asks, "What is he going to Korea for?" Nobody says, "What will you do when you get there ? " Nobody says, "Are you sure you're that much better than your old colleagues — General Bradley, General Ridgway, General Van Fleet, General Col- lins, General Clark, and General Vanden- berg? " All of them have been to Korea, and none of them have found how to bring about what the Republican candidate appears to promise — "an early and honorable end" to the fighting. And when somebody does suggest that perhaps the answer to Korea lies not in Korea itself, but in the plans of the Kremlin in Moscow, and in the combined and grow- ing defenses of the whole free world — then the Republican candidate handles that by shouting "appeasement!" — which, of course, it isn't. I have been wondering, for some time, how the Republican candidate is able to solve all our gravest problems in this simple, easy way. Not every Republican can get away with it. I have come to the conclusion that there is a special element in his case. I think it may lie in his military training, what they call the habit of command. This habit is well developed in some gen- erals. During the war they used to tell about 992 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 29 [316] an order posted in some of our overseas areas which said, "On the following days the sun will rise and set at such and such times — by order of the Commanding General." You see, if you have that kind of training, you can solve any problem — nothing's too tough. Just give an order. The only trou- ble is that the orders posted on the bulletin boards don't always have the desired effect. In the Army, you don't talk back to a gen- eral, but what he says doesn't always come true either. Perhaps the reason for the Republican candidate's astonishing ability to solve all problems does not lie in his military training, after all. Perhaps it lies in the Republican advisers who are telling him what to say, and who have such towering contempt for the intelligence of the American people that they think we will swallow all this stuff. I don't much care what the reason is. I know that the business of democratic govern- ment is serious, difficult, and complicated. And nobody knows it better than I do. I know the only way that business can be car- ried on in a democracy is by facing the issues, by having differences of opinion about them, arguing about them, and voting on them. We have to reason together, as the Bible says; and when we have come to a conclusion we have to work together to carry out our decisions. No general order is going to eliminate our problems. No superman is going to solve our difficulties for us. Anybody who poses and talks like a superman is just a plain fraud. I stated at the beginning, and I wish to state again, that I have the gravest appre- hensions about the future course of our coun- try if the Republican Party is returned to power. As far as our internal progress and pros- perity are concerned, the Republican Party has not changed from its 20 years of blind and selfish opposition. Behind the bland assertions of their candidate lurks the same old hatchet crew. Their clear and an- nounced purpose is to hack away and hew away at the New Deal and the Fair Deal, to limit and restrict the things Government can do for the average man, to return the control of our economy to selfish private interests. And as far as our hopes for peace are con- cerned, I think the prospect under the Re- publicans would be even worse than in the case of the domestic problems. There are men in the Republican Party who are not isolationists. But they are not in control. Across the country, as a whole, they are in the minority. In the Congress they are few in number and lacking in seniority. The old isolationist wing has the seats of power, the posts of leadership. The aim of the Old Guard is what it was in 1946 — reduce the rich man's taxes. Re- duce the rich man's taxes. That is all they sing about. They will slash anything that stands in the way of that objective, including our national defense and our foreign policy. If you want proof of that, look at what they have been doing in the Congress in recent years. If you add to this controlling group a Chief Executive who is experienced only in the military profession, the results, my friends, may be disastrous. If you take as Chief Executive a man who believes that negotiation is appeasement, and give him a Congress that wants to reduce the size of our defenses and the strength of our alliances, you have a formula for disaster. Tough talk and weak defense spell war and defeat. The leadership we need is not military. The leadership we need is one that will knit our people together, strengthen our belief in our deepest spiritual values, and help us understand our great responsibility, under God, to lead the world to lasting peace. We will get that kind of leadership from Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. note: The President spoke at 9:30 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom of the Hotel Sherman, Chicago, 111. During his remarks he referred to Governors 993 [316] Oct. 29 Public Papers of the Presidents James F. Byrnes of South Carolina, Allan Shivers of Texas, and Robert F. Kennon of Louisiana, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, and Dean Acheson, Secretary of State. The address was broadcast. 317 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Michigan. October 30, 1952 [ 1 . ] Muskegon, Michigan ( Rear platform, 8 a.m.) You know, it's very, very hard for me to understand what is taking place in this campaign and in the country. I have never in the history of the country — and I am rather familiar with it — known of a "has been" drawing so many people to hear what he has to say. Now I am very glad to be here in Muskegon this morning. It is a pleasure to me to have your Governor and candidate for Senator, and their families, on the train this morning. I know that Michigan is going to return both of them to office. And they should, because you have had a good administration under Governor Williams, and Blair Moody has been a real representa- tive for you in the Senate of the United States. I understand that this is the first time a President of the United States has come to Muskegon, and I want to thank you for coming out here to greet your President at this time of day. In the past 2 months I have traveled 17,000 miles and made 200 speeches. I have met with crowds like this in cities and towns from coast to coast, and all of them have been interested in hearing about the issues in this election. I want to tell you why I decided to come out here and work so hard in this campaign. The future of this great country of ours is at stake in this election. The future of the whole free world is at stake. I know it in my heart, and I want you to think and pray about it. I have been trying to get people to think. I have been trying to tell people the facts. And I have told them the facts, and all I want them to do is to think about those facts. You are faced with a great decision on Tuesday, the most important decision, in my opinion, that has faced the country since the Civil War. Are you going to turn back the clock by electing the Old Guard Republi- cans, or are you going to move forward with prosperity? Are we going to go soft in our struggle against communism and Com- munist aggression, as the Republican Old Guard wants, or are we going ahead with our defense program and win the fight for peace? We are fighting in Korea today to keep from fighting here on United States soil to- morrow. So far, we have won that fight and prevented a third world war. We should be eternally proud and grateful for what our soldiers have done over there, and I will tell you I am proud of them. And we ought to back them up and make our de- fenses and our allies stronger. But if we follow the advice of the Republicans, we will weaken our defenses and let communism take over the world. When I leave the White House next Janu- ary, I want to see this great Republic of ours in safe hands. I want to see as President of the United States a man who will fight for the general welfare of the average man, just as Franklin Roosevelt and I have fought for the last 20 years. I want to see as President of the United States a man who will fight for lasting peace. My friends, that man is Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. The Democratic Party has done great things for the people of this country in the past 20 years. We gave you social security, minimum wage laws, sound farm programs, and full employment. That is what the New 994 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 30 [317] Deal and the Fair Deal mean to you. Try to think of one thing the Republican Party ha9 done to advance your interests. You will have a hard time finding it. The Republicans have fought against the Fair Deal and against the New Deal, and just about everything we have done for the welfare of the people. But we have made great progress in spite of them. You don't have to take my word for it. Let me read you something from a magazine, a magazine that is no friend of mine — and very few of the slick magazines are friends of mine, or the Democratic Party, either — this is from the October 18th issue of Business Week, a magazine that is read mostly by Republicans. The article points out that 10 percent of the people at the very top of the economic scale get a smaller proportion of the national income than they used to, and the other 90 percent of the people get more of it. This means that most of the people are better off than ever before. And the magazine points out that this is due to the things your Gov- ernment has been doing. Now let me read you this from Business Week, and here it is. And you can get it yourself and check me up on this: "High levels of employment have put mil- lions of jobless under somebody's payroll, cut unemployment to rock bottom. In addition, the number of women workers has jumped sharply, giving many low-income farmers a double paycheck. Farm prosperity has lifted a whole economic class out of the bottom brackets into the middle class. Many mar- ginal holdings have been expanded — built up or merged into some income producing units. There are fewer farm families now, and they are making a lot more as a result of machinery, fertilizer, Government sup- ports, and higher demands. The unioniza- tion of labor and Government policy on wages have boosted the bottom bracket in- comes. At the same time they have caught many businesses in a vice that has squeezed down profits. Labor has used its new eco- nomic strength to take a bigger slice of the economic pie for itself. Welfare programs, unemployment compensation, social secu- rity, and the like fatten up family incomes that otherwise might shrink to the vanish- ing point." Now there you have it. There you have it — in the words of an opposition magazine. That is what the Democratic Party means to you. So, my friends, when you go to the polls on Tuesday, think of the welfare of this great country of yours. The welfare of this United States, the greatest and the most powerful Republic in the history of the world is at stake. The welfare of the free world is at stake. And there is another thing that you ought to think about — and that is why I am going around the country. I am trying to get you to do a little thinking for yourselves. Your own welfare is at stake. If you will study the record — all I want you to do is to read the record of the Republicans in the Con- gress, because that is where the policy is made. Read the record of the Democrats in the Congress, and then when you do that, you will send John H. Piercey to Congress, you will reelect your fighting liberal team of Senator Blair Moody and Governor Men- nen Williams. And you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government in your interest. [2.] Grand Rapids, Michigan (Rear plat- form, 9:55a.m.) I am very glad to be here in Grand Rapids again. This is the first time I have had a chance to come to Michigan in this cam- paign, and I certainly am enjoying it. No one comes here to Grand Rapids who can fail to think of your late townsman and Senator, Arthur Vandenberg. I hope you will permit me to speak about him. You see, I knew him very well for years, and he was a good friend of mine, and I had his help and counsel many times. I miss him 995 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents very much. We all have cause to miss him. That is what I wish to talk to you about today. Despite his tragic and untimely death last year, Arthur Vandenberg is still a great figure of importance in this campaign. What he did for the Republicans in his last and best years, and what the Republicans did without his wise counsel and advice after he passed on, illustrates one of the most vital of all issues in this election. This is the issue of peace and war. At the close of World War II, we helped set up the United Nations, and tried to work with all our wartime allies to build a lasting peace. But the Kremlin started its cold war against the free world. And this country, to our everlasting credit, took up that challenge, assumed leadership of the free nations and organized the free world in strong resistance to the threat from Moscow. Korea marks the greatest test, the most im- portant landmark in all that we have done to hold and counter Soviet imperialism. The free world met that test as it never had the will or the courage to meet the Japanese ag- gression in Manchuria, or Hider's march into Austria. We have stopped aggression in Korea and hurled it back. We have done it there so we will not be forced to do it somewhere else, on a larger scale, closer to home. We are fight- ing in Korea so that we will not have to fight in Wichita, or San Francisco, or Grand Rapids, Michigan. We have been building up the free world's strength to hold the Communists, secure the peace, and prevent another world war. As long as Senator Vandenberg was with us, he was a tower of strength, a leader and a counselor at every step of this great enter- prise. He saw what we were up against, right from the start. He knew we must have strong friends and allies, all around the world, to prevent the Communists from starting another world war, and to help fight them if they were rash enough to start that world war. He knew this was the only way to safeguard freedom and to save American lives. Because of his leadership, a majority of the Republicans in Congress voted for the Greek-Turkish aid program in 1947. Be- cause of his leadership, a majority of the Republicans voted for the Marshall plan in 1948. Because of the leadership of Arthur Vandenberg, a majority of the Republicans voted for the North Adantic Treaty in 1949. Senator Vandenberg was a great Repub- lican leader. The importance of his leader- ship is most clearly demonstrated by what happened as soon as illness forced him to withdraw his guiding hand. My friends, from that time onward, the Republican Party in Congress has gone backwards into the hands of the Old Guard isolationists, who always hated Vanden- berg, and made haste to reverse the whole direction of his work. Look at the record. If there is anything that Senator Vandenberg stood for and be- lieved in, it is our alliance with the North Atlantic countries and our programs of economic and military aid to help them. Yet most of the present leaders of the Repub- licans in Congress have now turned against these programs, and vote time after time to hamper or cripple them. Their usual technique, of course, is to attack the funds required to carry out these vital programs. Here are some examples: In 1950 more than four-fifths of the Repub- lican Senators voted, two separate times, for serious cuts in the Marshall plan. In 1951 Republican Senators voted overwhelmingly, six separate times, to cripple economic aid for Europe and to slash military aid. Their colleagues in the House did exactly the same thing. In 1952 — this year, mind you — three-fourths of the Republican Senators and nine-tenths of the Republican Congressmen voted for most dangerous slashes in economic and military aid to the free nations of Europe. This is the record of the Republican Party without Senator Vandenberg. By these votes they have sought to undermine, in 996 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 30 [317] actual operation, the policies that he helped to create. In this way they have repudiated his leadership. Yet these are the men who come before the country now, asking that this Nation's future, and the whole world's hopes for peace, be placed in their hands for 4 long years. And what of the leader of their so-called crusade? Has he supported the great principles of the bipartisan foreign policy? Until this summer he was the Supreme Commander in Europe under the North Atlantic Treaty. I appointed him to that job. In that capacity he was charged with carrying out an important part of our effort to build a solid system of mutual security. Now, early this year I sent down to the Congress a carefully considered budget for this vital task. Quite naturally, in con- sidering my request, congressional commit- tees sought out the views of the Supreme Commander in Europe. They asked for his opinion on the sum I had requested, and they also asked his views on the effect of cuts in that amount. He sent them word that a reduction of as much as a billion dollars would be heavily and seriously felt. He also stated, and I quote, "Any cut materially greater than this would create such difficulties that a drastic revision of the whole program might be indicated, and might therefore endanger the proposed military buildup . . . which I consider essential in the interest of United States security." That is a direct quote from the testimony before the Committee. Yet with that warning clear before them, the Republicans in Congress — aided by a few backward-looking Democrats — pro- ceeded to slash not one, but nearly $2 billion from the funds I had requested. The Supreme Commander did not protest. He said not a word. Instead he came home to run for the Republican nomination for President. And after he became the nomi- nee, he promptly endorsed for reelection the Senators and Congressmen who had ignored his warnings and slashed the funds that were essential for the enterprise he had led in Europe. Now, this man recently came to Michigan and wrapped himself in Arthur Vanden- berg's mantle and called himself a "Vanden- berg Republican." He rode across your State extolling the policies of Vandenberg that he and he himself had believed in and worked for. Then he went to Illinois, where Bertie McCormick and Senator Dirksen reign over the Republican Party. And there he sneered at these same policies and talked like an isolationist. If he was a "Vandenberg" Republican in Michigan, he most surely was a "Dirksen- Taft-McCormick" Republican in Illinois. The Republican candidate asks that he be made the leader of our country. But in politics, my friends, just as in the Army, a leader should lead. He talks about the Van- denbergs, but in this whole campaign he has not displayed an ounce of leadership such as Vandenberg exerted every day. My friends, I am convinced that it would be most dangerous to our hopes of peace if this country were turned over to a man like that, and to the party he now represents. Above all, you will vote to send to the White House a man who has proved by his record and by his conduct in this campaign that he possesses wisdom and the courage of his con- victions— a real understanding of the prob- lems of world leadership in these troubled times. And that is Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Now I want to point out something to you — I want to point out something to you people here. I went out on this campaign with the simple purpose of getting people like you to think. I want you to hear Eisenhower carefully. I want you to be courteous to him. I want you to know the issues. I want you to think about those issues. That is the only reason I am here. I want you to study the record in the Congress of the Republicans, and that is the only way you can find out what the policy of the Re- 997 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents publican Party will be, should they get con- trol of the Government. You must consider the welfare of the free world. You must consider the welfare of the greatest Republic the sun has ever shone on. You must reject the leadership of the isolationists and the reactionaries. You must vote instead for the party that has worked steadfastly to build a strong America and a strong free world. You will choose Blair Moody for your Senator. You will choose Mennen Williams for your Governor. You will choose Vin- cent O'Neill for your Congressman. You will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and the country will be safe for an- other 4 years. [3.] Lansing, Michigan (Rear platform, 11:21 a.m.) I am very, very happy to be here this morning. And it reminds me of something that happened on a former trip of mine, when I went to the west coast and came back. I have been told by the Associated Press that Michigan State has the most outstanding football team in the country. I stopped in a little town in Hudson, New York, which is just north of New York City. And I had had a letter from the president of the student council in which he said that they were having a football game that night and he wished I would stop and go to it. Well, of course I couldn't. I read his letter. And then told him that I would hope very much — he said they hadn't had any crowds at their games — I told him that I hoped very much that he would have a big crowd that night and that he would win, but that I couldn't take sides because I was trying to get votes and the other side would vote just as well as his would. Well, I got a telegram from him, after I got back from Washington. He said the stadium was not only filled, it was overflowing and that they won the game. Now, I hope this will bring luck to Michigan State. I'm very glad, of course, to have this op- portunity to visit the capital of Michigan, and the official home of Governor Williams. Now, I hope you Democrats here in Michigan realize how fortunate you are in having Mennen Williams as your Governor, and Blair Moody to represent you in the United States Senate. Both of them have won national recogni- tion as two of the ablest and most promising young leaders in the entire Democratic Party. Next Tuesday, you'll have a chance to show the rest of the country how much you appreciate them — here in your own great State. Of course, you know that I am not a candidate for office this year. I'm looking forward to a good rest after next January the 20th. But I'm not going to rest — and I hope you won't, either — between now and elec- tion day. I'm going to do everything I can — and I want you to do everything you can — to make sure that we elect as our next President a great civilian leader — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. The most important job that you have to do during the next few days is to get out and work to see that the people go to the polls on Tuesday. Just remember that this election and the future of our country are going to be de- cided by the people who vote. Those who stay at home won't have any right to com- plain, no matter what happens to them. The right to vote is a hard-earned privilege. It is a duty you owe to your country. It is a fundamental duty, because you are the Government, and when you don't exercise your right to vote, you have not done your duty by this great country. Now I've been saying all across the coun- try, that the Republican Party is not the party to trust if you want world peace. It is not the party to trust if you want prosperity at home. You can't trust it, for the simple reason that its leaders are the same hopeless, out- moded mossbacks that have dominated that party for almost a century. 998 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [317] Teddy Roosevelt got out of the party back in 19 12 because he couldn't stand the Old Guard. And just the other day, a great liberal Senator got out of it for the very same reason — that was Wayne Morse of Oregon. The Old Guard reactionaries have opposed almost every step that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have taken over the last 20 years to bring prosperity. The Old Guard isolationists have voted against most of the measures we have taken to build up a strong alliance of the free people of the world against communism. And when they haven't voted to kill these measures outright, they have voted to make them ineffective by cutting out the funds required to support them. Now, the Republican candidate for Presi- dent must know that the Old Guard would drag him down to defeat in this election. So while he has been campaigning in the East, he has been desperately trying to con- vince the people he hasn't made any deals with that wrecking crew. The American people know that all the Old Guard are on the Republican candidate's team. If you elect that team, they will write the laws and fix the appropriations. If it were true that he had not made any deals yet, he would still have to make some later on — or the Old Guard wouldn't do a thing he asked the Congress. But the fact is he has already made a cold- blooded deal with the Old Guard. And I thought I'd spell out that deal a little for you today, in case any of you have been taking the Republican candidate at face value when he says he is a "no-deal man." You remember that Senator Taft went to Canada, right after the Republican Conven- tion, for a long vacation. On July 17th, the Republican candidate sent him a telegram up there requesting his assistance in the campaign. But Senator Taft was in no hurry to come back. I suspect he figured the longer he waited the better deal he could get from the Republican candidate. Several newspapermen went up to Canada to see Senator Taft. When they came back, they said Senator Taft wouldn't get into the campaign actively unless and until he got written assurance from the presidential can- didate on at least two points. He wanted a definite commitment from the Republican candidate that his campaign would be an all-out attack on the domestic and foreign policies of the Democratic Party. He also wanted a commitment that Taft sup- porters would get their share of the jobs, if the Republican candidate were elected. He and the candidate finally met at Morn- ingside Heights in New York on September 12. They spent 2 hours together. They had breakfast together. Now does anyone doubt that the subject of their negotiation was con- trol of the Republican Party, and of this campaign? Does anyone doubt that the control of the next administration was dis- cussed— if the Republicans won? When the meeting was over, Senator Taft read to the press conference a long prepared statement, which he said he and the candi- date for President had just agreed upon. That statement was an unequivocal reitera- tion of the views of Senator Taft and of the reactionary, isolationist Old Guard wing of the Republican Party. It was something else, too. It was a com- mitment, in writing, that Senator Taft had served notice of what he was going to de- mand from the Republican candidate for President. And I think he got what he wanted a lot easier than he thought he would. Just listen to this from the statement that Taft prepared so carefully: "General Eisen- hower stated without qualification that in the making of appointments at high levels, or low levels, there would be no discrimina- tion against anyone because he or she had supported me." Earlier, Taft had made clear that his supporters were, in his words, at least half the party. That agreement means that the Republi- can candidate would make half his appoint- ments from the ranks of the Old Guard. And if it didn't mean that one-half the Cabi- 999 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents net members will be from the Old Guard, I just don't understand the English language. Yet he says, when he is in the East, that he is a "no-deal man." The Republican candidate must think that the American people have short memories and that they are easily fooled. At that same breakfast, the candidate for President even gave up the right to conduct his own campaign in his own way. He per- mitted Senator Taft to say for both of them, in that written statement, that the issue in this campaign was "liberty against social- ism," and that the greatest threat to liberty is "internal" — in other words, the danger comes not from world communism but from our own Government. That meant the candidate adopted the isolationist position. The whole struggle within the Republican Party in Chicago had been between the isolationists and those Republicans who believed in international cooperation. We all thought that the inter- nationalists had won. But they didn't, be- cause the Republican candidate surrendered on that issue without one word of protest. The candidate for President also gave up his right to use his best judgment on the amount of money that would be required for national defense during the next 2 years. Senator Taft exacted a promise that the budget would be cut about $20 billion in the fiscal year 1954, and $10 billion more in the fiscal year 1955. That casual pledge, over a cup of coffee — to cut $20 billion from our expenditures — could mean the difference between peace and a third world war. Most of that reduc- tion would have to come from national de- fense and mutual security, and nobody knows that better than the Republican candidate. Now, I could go on to talk about some other deals — like the one he made to give away some of your property. I refer to the rich offshore oil lands, which the Supreme Court has said belong to all the people of the United States — including you folks here in Michigan. He bargained away your prop- erty for votes of the oil interests in the three coastal States. Yet he says he has made no deals ! He cooked up a deal with the Shiver- crats and with that Dixiecrat Governor of Louisiana on these very oil properties, and they belong to you, my friends. And you ought to look out for your property. The oil deal only costs you money. The Taft deal costs you something more important. I don't know whether the candidate is being dishonest or whether he is just not aware of what happened to him when he talked to Senator Taft. If he is not aware of having made a deal, he will find it out mighty fast — if you people make the mistake of electing him President. He will find the Old Guard ready to collect on that agreement the first time he asks for a law or sends them a budget. No matter whatever he might want to do, they would plunge this country into isola- tionism. And, my friends, isolationism is the road to war. No matter what he might want to do, they would take this country back to the outmoded, discredited Republi- can economic policies of the 1920's. And that kind of economics is the road to another depression. I want to make a different kind of a deal with you folks this morning, and it's one we don't have to try to hide. Let's all go to the polls on Tuesday and elect Democrats. Let's put Mennen Wil- liams back in the Governor's chair here in Lansing. Let's send Don Hayworth to Congress and Blair Moody back to the Senate. Let's vote for a government in Washing- ton that won't sell out the people of this country — either to the reactionaries or the Communist aggressors. Vote for an administration that will pro- tect our national prosperity and our national defense. Vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man, and our country will be safe for 4 more years. 1000 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [317] I appreciate very much the courteous treat- ment of these young people, over here, and I understand that they have been brought for the purpose — it's very fine. I have a fine feeling of courtesy from the people of Lansing — and you young people have added to it. I appreciate it very much. [4.] Durand, Michigan (Rear platform, 12:40 p.m.) Thank you very much for this turnout. It certainly is helpful to me, because I know you are interested in the issues, and that is what I am trying to put out to the people. I am enjoying the trip through Michigan very much. I am not out here trying to get anything for myself. After January 20th I will be out of a job, and a "has been." I will be just plain Harry Truman — I will probably be around asking you for a job about that time. I will be especially glad if I can leave behind me in the White House a man who will work for all the people all the time — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I hope you have been listening to Gov- ernor Stevenson's fine speeches. They show you he is a man of principle, honest with himself and honest with you. They also show he really understands civilian government and civilian problems. And he is as sound as he can be in his grasp of the great problems of world peace. Of course, he has had a lot of experience in government, and it is natural that he should know a lot about it. He worked in the Agricultural Department at the start of the New Deal. When World War II came along he was Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, and learned about the top level mili- tary problems from a civilian viewpoint. Also, during the war, he headed up a very important mission to Italy to help that country get back on its feet. And then he was taken by the State Department to help set up the United Nations. And now, as you know, for the past few years, he has been Governor of Illinois, and he has given that great State about the cleanest, most efficient, and most progressive government in the history of that State. This is good training for a man who is going to be President — the best kind of training. You can count on a man with experience like that. It is a very reassuring contrast to the military man who is running on the other side. He has been a great general — a very great general — but he doesn't know a thing about civilian life or civilian problems, or how to run civil gov- ernment. He has military training and a military mind. And those are very special- ized minds indeed — the military minds are. Think these things over. Compare the qualifications of the two candidates. Com- pare the platforms, and the voting records of the two parties. Then make your deci- sion in the light of what helps you. And remember the welfare of this great Nation of ours, and remember your own in- terests when you go to vote. If you do that, I have no doubt how you will vote next Tues- day. You will vote to send Blair Moody back to the Senate, and Mennen Williams back to the State Capitol again. And you will put that able and experienced man, Clarence Smazel, in Congress to represent your interests. Above all, you will cast your vote for the next President of the United States — Adlai Stevenson. Thank you very much. [5.] Flint, Michigan (Rear platform, 1:16p.m.) In 1948 I came to Flint on Labor Day to ask you to vote for me and to keep the Democratic Party in Washington. And you did. I am not running for office this time, but I am working harder than ever for a Demo- cratic victory next Tuesday. You know, I have been in politics for 40 years, and I have been in elective public office for 30 years, and 1001 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents I have had everything that a man can have at the hands of the Democratic Party, and I am going to do something that is a little unusual. I am going to keep on being a Democrat and keep on working for the Democratic Party. Now, in this campaign you are going to need the very best men you can get to lead the fight for peace and prosperity in the coming 4 years, and you have these men on the Democratic ticket in this State. For the Senate you have Blair Moody. I don't have to tell you what a wonderful rec- ord Blair Moody has already made in his short time in the Senate. He will continue to give the great State of Michigan real rep- resentation in Washington. For Congress you have Donald Hayworth. He will be a fine addition to the Michigan delegation in Congress — and I hope you send him down there. I don't need to say anything about your candidate for Governor. He has already shown you what he can do and how he can work for this great State — and you ought to send him back to Lansing. Now this year the Democratic Party has as its candidate for President a man who really understands the needs and hopes of the American people. Adlai Stevenson will be a great President. I hope you have been listening to his speeches. They tell you just what his ideas are about protecting the gains we have made over the past 20 years, and we can continue to move forward for another 20 years if we go at this thing like we should. Many of those gains of the past 20 years have to do with labor. I have been accused by the Republican Party of many sins since I have assumed the Office of the President over 7 years ago. One sin which they say I am guilty of is that I have been prolabor. Well, I want to say to you I plead guilty. I am a friend of labor, and so is the Demo- cratic Party. For example, the Democratic Party is in favor of laws which see to it that labor has a right to organize and get an even break when dealing with big management. I know that in the eyes of the Republican Old Guard, it is a sin to think that way. The men who have been fighting labor for years — the men who had labor organizers arrested and run out of town, who hired scabs and strikebreakers — are a powerfully organized group in the Republican Party. They are the men who profit by the Taft- Hartley law. In Republican councils their voices drown out the voices of the men who say that labor unions are here to stay. I am also in favor of an economy of full employment, and so is the Democratic Party. That is another example of that awful sin of being prolabor, according to the Republicans. In 1946 the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted 2 to 1 against a bill that would have committed the Government to full employment. Senator Taft led the fight on that bill in the Senate, and he will run the Congress if you elect the Republicans. He said he couldn't see any magic in more jobs and more people working. He hasn't changed a bit — he's the same old Taft he was then. And he is going to be the boss of this ad- ministration, if you make the mistake of electing a Republican ticket. Some of the powerful businessmen in the Republican Party go so far as to advocate unemployment. In 1949 Winthrop Aldrich of the Chase National Bank was saying that what he called a "corrective recession" was "necessary" and ought not to be feared. I am also in favor of social security for the workingman, and so is the Demo- cratic Party. That means old-age insurance, unemployment compensation — which we have — and other forms of protection which we don't have, but which we have been trying to get. That is what being a friend of labor has meant under the New Deal and the Fair Deal. It means we believe in the right to organize, in full employment, and in security. There is an awful lot at stake in this 1002 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [317] election, my friends. The same reactionary forces that have opposed almost every pro- gressive program of the New Deal and the Fair Deal for the past 20 years are in the driver's seat in the Republican campaign this year. They are just as apt to reverse our policies of peace in the world as they are to reverse our policies of prosperity at home. I know you people have been thinking about these matters, and thinking hard in this election year. I want you to elect a party that believes in the workingman's right to organize, in his needs for security. I know you want to elect a party that works for all the people. Now, the only reason I am out making such a terrific fight in this campaign is be- cause I think that it is the most important campaign since the Civil War. There are things at stake in this campaign which go to the very roots of free government. I am asking you people to do some thinking. I have gone up and down the country — I have been 17,000 to 18,000 miles talking to crowds just like this, all over the United States, urging them to use their heads, to get the facts — and you can't get the facts by reading this Republican press we have — and you can't get the facts from the Republican leaders. So I have taken it upon myself to go out and tell you exactly what the facts are, and I know them better than anybody else in the United States, for I have been at this — as I was telling you — for 40 years, and I have been in Washington since 1935, and I know what is going on. I know what is likely to go on, if you make the terrible mis- take of sending these backward-looking people down to Washington on November the 4th. I know that you have faith in America, under the right leadership, that can prevent depressions and provide jobs for everyone who wants to work. That also can win the fight for peace. That is why I know you are going to the polls on November the 4th to vote for the party of the people, the Democratic Party — and send Adlai Steven- son to the White House for 4 years, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [6.] Pontiac, Michigan (Rear platform, 3:20 p.m.) I appreciate most highly this cordial wel- come. I remember the grand reception I received here 4 years ago, but this one is even better, and I am not running for office this time and I can't understand it. You see, on the 20th of January I will be out of a job. I may be back here asking you to put me to work. I am working harder than I did before, though, in the other campaign, because I think it is so very important that you make the right choice at the polls on Tuesday. You have a fine slate of men to choose on the Democratic ticket here in Michigan. For Senator you have Blair Moody. He has really worked for you people down in Washington. He is a fine young man — a good Democrat, and I know you are going to keep him in the Senate so that he can continue his excellent record. For Congress you have Arthur Law, whom you just met. He has had wide ex- perience in your local government, and he knows the problems of the workingman — which is very important for a man when he is in Washington. For Governor, of course you are going to send Mennen Williams back to Lansing, as you should. He has made you a good Gov- ernor, and he will continue to make you a good Governor, and when a man makes good, you ought to reward him for it. Now this year the national Democratic ticket is headed by two of the finest men in public service in this generation — and that is Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. They are men who can stand on their rec- ords of accomplishment in civilian govern- ment. They can be trusted with the great responsibilities of leadership in tl*e critical years ahead of us. 1003 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents Make no mistake about it, your jobs and your very welfare depend upon the men you choose in this election to lead your country. The Democratic Party has worked hard for peace and prosperity over the past 20 years, and this country has made tremendous gains. But our work is far from completed. We can lose all those gains in short order if the party in control of our Government does not understand the programs that have brought such great returns to the American people. During the final 2 weeks of this campaign, the Republican candidate for President has come forth — as I predicted — with a lot of "me too" promises about the programs of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. It took him quite a while to learn that the people of this country really believe in the programs that have been endorsed in five presidential elections. Now he is trying to convince the voters of this country that they can trust him and his Old Guard friends to keep these programs going, if they get control of the Government. Don't you take a chance like that — you'll be sorry if you do. That line just won't work with the people. A victory for the reactionary Re- publicans, who are running this campaign, would threaten every one of the gains the people of this country have made in the past 20 years. The Republican Party is still the party that is run by the special interests. There's just no two ways about it. If the Republicans get a chance to tear down the social and economic reforms we have brought about in this country, that will be bad enough. But if they get a chance to start tearing down all the work we have done for world peace, that will be some- thing that will be bad indeed. Everybody knows that Communist ag- gression is a serious threat to the whole free world. We have been working to meet that threat without bringing on a third world war. The only way to do this is by building up our military strength and the strength of our allies. The only way we can do it is through international cooperation. But most of the Republicans do not believe in these programs of international cooperation. They usually vote to cripple them whenever they get a chance. If they had their way, very soon we would be left alone with no friends or allies to help fight off the Communists. Instead of fighting in Korea, we might soon be fighting here in Michigan, or San Francisco, or New Orleans. I am terribly afraid of what might happen to this country if the Republican isolationists get control of the Government. Now I know you are not going to let that happen. I know you don't want to see a third world war any more than I do. I want you to think about these things. It is abso- lutely necessary that the people of this coun- try use their heads. The only reason in the world that I am going around over the coun- try talking about the issues is because you can't find out about them any other way. The Republican press and the Republican leaders are not going to tell you anything about the issues. They want to get you off on a side road and fool you. I am going to see that they don't do that. All I am asking you to do is to study the record. Study the record of the Republicans in the Congress. Study the record of the Democrats in the Congress. Think about the things that have happened over the last 20 years, and then decide whether you want the clock to be turned back, or whether you want to go forward with Adlai Stevenson in the White House for the next 4 years — and 4 years of good government. [7.] Hamtramck, Michigan (Memorial Park, 4:26 p.m.) I appreciate most highly this cordial recep- tion. I have always remembered with pleas- ure my former visit here. This is the best Democratic town in the country, and I am always glad to be here for that reason. I IOO4 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [317] remember how well you treated me when I came here in 1948. And I remember also how you voted for me that year, too — and I appreciate that most highly, and always will — for I needed it then. Now I am out here for another purpose this time. I hope that you will do even bet- ter for Adlai Stevenson. Governor Steven- son is a great American, and he will make you a great President — I haven't any doubt of that at all. If you will elect him and a good Democratic Congress, then you will continue to have a government that works for the welfare of the plain people — the everyday people in this country. That is what the Democratic Party believes in: It be- lieves in the people. Its first consideration is the welfare of the people. The Republican Party has no heart. I have always said that they use a calculating machine for a heart, for they are thinking about the big wealth all the time. The Democrats think of the people that make up the country — the vast majority of them. We believe that the Government ought to help provide jobs for people, and help make it possible for workingmen to raise their families in decency and health. We believe that people ought to have decent homes in which to live, and a chance to send their children to good schools. We believe that people are entitied to some secu- rity in their old age. Now that is the kind of government you have had for 20 years under the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, and the Fair Deal of Harry Truman. That is the kind of govern- ment you will get from Adlai Stevenson. But I will tell you right now, it is not the kind of government you would get from the Re- publicans and their five-star general. Oh no, my friends, they don't believe in that kind of thing. They are coming around now, at election time, making you a lot of promises, giving you a lot of false propaganda. But I hope you won't believe them. You have been through that kind of propaganda five times before, and you weren't fooled, and I don't want you to be fooled this time. Ask your good Democratic Congressman about them — ask Thad Machrowicz. He can tell you what the Republicans really stand for and what they have been doing down there in the Congress. Thad has done a fine job for you in the Congress. He has fought for the St. Lawrence Seaway. He has done good work for the committee that investigated the Katyn Forest massacre. I was glad to cooperate with that committee, because they were doing a job that needed to be done. The facts about that terrible crime ought to be fully exposed. Thad Machrowicz helped me fight that terrible immigration law that Congress passed over my veto. That law discriminates against the Poles and other people in eastern Europe. It gives a second-class status to naturalized citizens. That is un-American, and the Democratic Party platform promises to get it changed. The platform also pledges further aid to refugees from communism, and we ought to change our laws so we can take into this country more of the people who escape from behind the Iron Curtain. I have been working for that for 7 long years. Blair Moody has been in this fight, too. Send him back to the Senate to work with Thad Machrowicz — and Adlai Steven- son. I am sure you will do that. And if the rest of the country will send us enough good Democrats like yours, we will get those ter- rible immigration laws corrected. We don't believe in the Republican theory that the Poles and other people from eastern Europe are not desirable immigrants. On the contrary, we welcome them with open arms — and we always will. Now the Republicans have been coming around telling you all the things they would do about Poland. But they don't tell you what they have been doing down in Wash- ington to cripple our fight against Commu- nist aggression. You know and I know that for the peoples behind the Iron Curtain to achieve their freedom, the free nations of the world must first have strong defenses 1005 [317] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents against Communist aggression. That is what we have been working for, and we have made a lot of progress. We have built up the strength of our own Armed Forces, and we have helped our allies build up theirs. But we haven't had much help from the Republicans. They have been voting to cut the funds for our national defense and for help to our friends abroad. That is still what they want to do. And if you were to elect a Republican President and a Republican Congress, they would wreck our programs against Communist aggression, just as sure as I am standing here. And we would be that much closer to a third world war. But I know you are not going to do that. I know you are not going to turn this coun- try over to the Republican isolationists and reactionaries. Instead, you are going to vote for this fine bunch of Democratic candidates you have here in the great State of Michigan. You are going to send Thad Machrowicz to Congress, Blair Moody to the United States Senate, Mennen Williams you will make your Governor again, because he has made you a good Governor — and because a man has been tried and true you ought to give him another chance. I have been going up and down this coun- try from one end to the other — I have been between 17,000 and 18,000 miles, and I have made over 180 talks on the subject of govern- ment and the issues that are before the peo- ple. The only way you can find out what the issues really are and get the truth on them is to have the President of the United States tell you about them. That is what the Presi- dent of the United States has been doing. That is one of his duties, to let the people know and to report to them just exactly what the situation is. You will not find out what the issues are from the Republican press. The Republicans won't tell you anything about the issues. They want to get you off on a side street and keep you from looking at the issues. I want you to do a little thinking. I want you to study the record, and that is the only way you can find out — because what people will do is what they have done in the past. Study the record of the Republicans in the Congress. Study the record of the Demo- crats in the Congress, and find out which of those records is for the people, and which of those records is for the special interests. When you do that, I won't have to argue with you. You will vote your own inter- ests. You will vote the Democratic ticket on November the 4th, and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House for the next 4 years, and we will have 4 more years of good government. Now vote in your own interests on election day. [8.] Detroit, Michigan (Maybury Grand, 4:48 p.m.) I appreciate that more than I can tell you. I think you took in a litde too much territory, Mr. Chairman. I don't pose as the greatest man who ever sat in the Presi- dent's chair. But I do pose as one of the hardest working ones that ever sat there. I have had quite a career in public life. Thirty years ago next month I will have been elected to elective public office for 30 years. I have been in elective public office for 30 years — except for 2 years which I spent in the First World War. So I have been in public office for 30 years. And I have tried my best always to give the people the best I had in me. Now one of the great problems which I faced when I became President of the United States, was the problem of the unfairness in racial conditions in this country. I immedi- ately appointed a commission which made a complete survey of the whole situation. That commission brought in one of the best reports that has ever been made to any President — the best report, in fact, that has ever been made on that subject. The effect of that report has been phenomenal. There has been an immense improvement in racial relations in the United States of America since that report was made. IO06 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 30 [317] We have been able to do away with segrega- tion in the Armed Forces of the United States. We are continuing with everything we have to integrate that report as a whole. I have tried and tried, time and again, to get the FEPC law on the Federal statute books. I have not been able to do that, on account of the fact that the Republicans always joined hands with the Dixiecrats and refused to help me to do anything about it. I know that you understand that situation. You remember, back in 1948, the Republi- cans wrote a platform, which was a pretty good platform — about the best one they ever had. The one they have now is about the rottenest one they ever had, too. Well, in Philadelphia, about two o'clock in the morning, when I accepted the Demo- cratic presidential nomination, I called a special session of Congress, and I called it the "Turnip Day" session, because it came on the 26th of July, and that is "Turnip Day" in Missouri. I asked those Republicans — and they had an FEPC endorsement in their platform — to join with the liberal Democrats and put that law through. And do you know, they didn't do it. They wouldn't turn a wheel on it. No matter how long I live, I shall con- tinue to work for fair treatment for every citizen of the United States, no matter what the color of his skin. I am proud of what has been accomplished in the 7 years that I have been in the Presi- dency. Every effort has been made to do what was promised in the Democratic platform. And I want to say to you people that the Democratic platform this year has the best paragraph on the subject that has ever been written into a platform. And I want to say to you — and I want you to remember this carefully — the men who are responsible for writing that plank in the Democratic plat- form were William Dawson, the Congress- man from Chicago, and John Sparkman, the Congressman from Alabama. And John Sparkman has come out wholeheartedly for the Democratic platform. And John Sparkman is an honorable man, as your Congressman here can tell you. Don't you worry about John Sparkman 's stand on the Democratic platform, because he stands squarely on it. I want you to consider your own welfare now. I want you to do a little thinking on the situation with which we are faced. We are going into one of the greatest elections, and one of the most important elections, in the history of the country. You must think about what the issues really are. The reason I am going up and down the country and telling the people what the issues are is because you can't find them out in any other way. You can't get them from the Republican press, and the Republicans won't tell you what the issues are, because they don't want you to look at the issues. They don't dare to. If you do what I ask you — do a little thinking in the interests of this great Repub- lic of ours — and do a little thinking in your own interests, you can't do anything else on November the 4th but send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will have 4 more years of good government. note: In the course of his remarks on October 30 the President referred to Governor G. Mennen Williams, Senator Blair Moody, and John H. Piercey and Vincent E. O'Neill, Democratic candidates for Representative, all of Michigan, Arthur H. Van- denberg, Senator from Michigan, 1928-51, Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Donald Hayworth, Clarence V. Smazel, and Arthur J. Law, Democratic candidates for Repre- sentative, and Representative Thaddeus Machrowicz, all of Michigan, Winthrop Aldrich, chairman of the board of the Chase National Bank of New York, and Representative William L. Dawson of Illinois. 1007 [318] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents 318 Address at the State Fair Coliseum in Detroit. October 30, 1952 Governor Williams, ladies and gentlemen: [At this point someone in the audience shouted, "Give 'em hell, Harry I" The President then resumed speaking. ,] Just give me a chance and I will do it — it is good indeed to be in Detroit once more, and to be speaking before this meeting of Democrats. As you may have heard, I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory in this election. I am campaigning harder this year than I campaigned for myself in 1948. And the reason is, I believe this election is one of the most important our country has ever held. Tonight, I want to speak to you — not only to the people here in Detroit and in Michi- gan, but to the people all over the United States by radio and television. This is one of my last appearances as President. It is one of the last that I can talk to the people of the entire country as the head of the Democratic Party, as their President, as their Chief Executive, and as the Commander in Chief of your Armed Forces. And there are some things I want to say right from the heart. When I leave the White House January 20, 1953, 1 will have served as your President for 7 years and 9 months, plus a few days. These have been momentous years in the history of our country and in the history of the world. I have had to deal with some of the gravest problems that ever confronted a President of the United States. In those years I believe our country has made some great advances. In particular, I have in mind three great achievements that I would like to tell you about. I hope you will forgive me if I talk a little bit about the accomplishments of my administration. I believe I am entided to do that tonight. History doesn't begin to be kind to a President for about 50 years after he has served. If there is anything good about me, you will never find it out from the newspapers of today. Jefferson,, Lincoln, Jackson, Cleveland, Woodrow Wil- son, Franklin Roosevelt were treated in exactly the same way, so you see I am in pretty good company. The first achievement I want to mention concerns prosperity. We have discovered how to manage our economic life so that we can maintain a high level of prosperity and avoid depressions. We have created a rising level of wealth, and one that is distributed fairly and broadly among all the people. I don't say we will never have a depres- sion again. But I do say that we can prevent it — if we will apply the lessons of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. The second great achievement is in the field of civil rights. Here, we have awakened the conscience of the Nation. Instead of falling backward into a period of race hate and prejudice after World War II,, we went forward. We are steadily break- ing down the barriers of prejudice through- out our economic, cultural, and political life. We still have a very long way to go, but this progress is for me one of the great satisfac- tions of my whole lifetime. The third great achievement I want to mention is in the field of foreign relations. This is the most important of all, because it means our national survival. At the close of World War II, the Soviet Union began a worldwide effort to absorb the free countries into its system of Com- munist tyranny. Their plot was a stagger- ing one — conceived with diabolical cun- ning— to take advantage of war-weariness and our fervent hopes for peace. Our allies were weak and economically prostrate; we ourselves wanted to demobilize our Armed Forces, and concentrate on our affairs here at home. Most of the world was defenseless, and unaware of the danger. Looking back, we can see that the Soviet 1008 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [318] plot was shrewdly timed — and that its success must have seemed inevitable to its leaders. Now, we have managed to organize our- selves to meet this thing and to stop it — and I think it is one of the greatest achieve- ments in our history. We ought to be tremendously proud of what we have done. Just think of it! This Nation of ours, which only 20 years ago had been strongly isolationist, attained the leadership of the whole free world. We poured forth eco- nomic aid to other nations and helped them to stop Communist subversion within their borders. We built up alliances and defenses across the world. Then in June of 1950 the leaders in the Kremlin thought they could terrorize the free nations into submission by an act of outright, military aggression in little Korea. We stopped that, too. We met it by force of arms. We stopped it, and we held it, and we drove it back. We met aggression in Korea to save our freedom in the United States and to save the freedom of all the free world. I think we are now reaching a turning point in this struggle. The balances are moving in our favor. We will see that all our sacrifices and effort have been worth- while. We will have gained our end of stopping aggression without a third world war. If we stop aggression without another world war, the United States will have measured up to its responsibilities as the greatest nation in the history of the world. These are our three great achievements. As you can see, they are all still in process — and still incomplete. I would like to stay in office and see them through, but I long ago decided that two terms were enough for any man. The burdens of the Presi- dency are grave and exhausting. In a democracy like ours, no man should con- sider himself indispensable. So I decided that I would not run for reelection. Nevertheless, I want to see these three great advances carried through to final suc- cess. I want to see our economic life grow and expand further for the benefit of all classes. I want to see us achieve our goal of complete acceptance of civil rights. I want to see us win this struggle for world peace. In this election, the voters have the choice between two political parties to carry this great work forward. There is a great difference between the philosophy of the two parties on these fundamental problems. I do not want to see the clock turned back, and the work of all these years undone. That is why I am campaigning for the Demo- cratic nominee for President. That is why I am campaigning for the Democratic nomi- nee for President, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. I am going to talk to you now about the fundamental differences between the two parties. Let us take, first, the differences between them on the question of prosperity. The Republican Party was last in power in 1932, and in that year the American dream was all but shattered. That was not only a time of breadlines and souplines and misery for millions, as we all remember. It was also a time of deep crisis in American history — when the whole American idea was on trial. The crisis called for boldness of thought and swiftness of action. The Republican Party had neither. So the American people turned them out, and gave the reins of government to the Democratic Party. You well remember the confidence, the faith, the ringing words of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Under his leadership, the Democratic Party corrected, one by one, the deep-seated wrongs that had come into the American economic system and the American society while under the Republican Party's policies. I came to the United States Senate from Missouri in January 1935, and I worked on these great programs of the New Deal dur- ing that inspiring period in American history. IOO9 [318] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents It was inspiring because we made the Government of the United States the Gov- ernment of all the people. We moved the Capital of the United States from Wall Street to Washington — and it's still in Washington, and it's going to stay there. The voice of the farmer was heard in the legislative halls. We thought of him, and not of the commodity speculators, when we wrote our farm laws. We brought him a measure of security through price supports, soil conservation programs, and systems of farm credit. We listened to the ordinary workingman, and we thought of him when we wrote labor laws. We guaranteed his right to organize; we gave him a position of real bargaining equality with powerful employers. And we gave him insurance against unemployment, and a system of security for his old age. We listened to the minorities of the coun- try— the foreign born, the Negroes, the religious minorities — and in the laws we wrote they were given the equal treatment that all men deserve. We introduced wise and farsighted eco- nomic policies that saved the free enterprise system and saved this American Republic. I do not need to tell you that Franklin Roosevelt's whole program was fought un- ceasingly by the Republican Party, in and out of the Congress. They had no use for these measures of economic democracy. Everything we did in those days they called socialism. They said our measures would lead to bankruptcy. Well, you know how foolish that was. The country is not bankrupt — the country is rich, because the people are working and producing and eating where they did not work and eat before. Yet, to this very day, the Republican Party does not admit that the Roosevelt New Deal had any good in it. Every one of their plat- forms, from 1936 to 1952, bemoans the loss of their liberties. In my own term as President, they attacked the full employment bill — with the idea of a depression-proof economy. And they have continued in the Congress to oppose the extension and improvements of all our pro- grams of social welfare. The record is clear. Now get this — this is important: You cannot trust the Republican Party to safe- guard and increase your prosperity. If you want prosperity to continue, elect the party that has built your prosperity since 1932. Keep the Democratic Party in power. They have given you what you need and what the country needs and what the world needs. You can't turn them out. Now, let's see if we can trust the Repub- licans with our second great advance — our progress toward full enjoyment of human rights and civil liberty. In this great State you honor the memory of a man who was one of the bravest cham- pions of human rights who ever lived — Frank Murphy. His tradition is carried on by your present Governor, Mennen Wil- liams, and by your Democratic Senator in Washington, Blair Moody. Now, Mennen Williams sent a civil rights program to the Republican legislature of the State of Michi- gan, and what happened? They killed it. In the Congress of the United States, we could have had a civil rights program adopted several years ago if the Republicans had voted for it. Now, why didn't they vote for it? What held them back from do- ing the decent thing? I'll tell you one of the reasons. It was the hope of making a deal with the Dixiecrats, the reactionary splinter party of the South, to help them win the Presidency in 1952. My friends, that's the deal they made. But it isn't going to do them a bit of good. Now the Democratic Party has a Senator from Alabama on the ticket for Vice Presi- dent. He is a progressive southerner — a man who has stood and fought against the big corporations in his State. He has fought for the workingman, regardless of color or creed. He helped to draft the Democratic platform this year — and that platform con- tains the best civil rights plank ever written. He stands on that platform. I know John IOIO Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 30 [318] Sparkman, and I honor him and I trust him — not only as a man, but as a fighter for human progress and decency. Moreover, the Republicans, this year, have stooped to a new political technique that is deadly to the American tradition of liberty. It is the systematic use of the "big lie," the weapon so widely used by the Nazis, the Fascists, and the Communists. The Republican Party could have rejected this un-American practice this year. But it did not do it. It asked the man for whom this method has come to be named, to be a featured speaker at the Republican conven- tion. Then its candidate for President chose to embrace the practitioners of this method, and ask that they be returned to the Senate of the United States as powerful members of his team. Worst of all was the justification the Re- publican candidate offered for this act. He has said that all Republicans may join in his "great crusade," no matter what their methods. That a presidential candidate could re- gard method as being unimportant would certainly have come as a shock to the men who founded this great Republic. They knew that in the field of human liberty, method is all-important. Liberty itself is but a method of conducting our affairs. The only difference between tyranny in every form and liberty in every form is a difference in method. A Republican victory would place these practitioners of the "big lie" in positions of great power, free to attack any who disagree with them. You cannot trust your human rights to a party that is running on the coattails of Joe McCarthy. And now, let's see if we can trust the Republicans to complete our program for peace. While Senator Vandenberg lived, there seemed to be a hope that the Republican Party could agree with the Democratic Party on the realities of the world situation. But after his death, the Republican Party fell under the control of men who protest that isolationism is dead, and then proceed to vote for it. These men voted against point 4, for example. They voted against military and economic aid to strengthen Korea in 1949 and in 1950. When they had a chance to strengthen Korea against Communist aggression, they would not do it. Sometimes they vote for an international program but against the money to carry it out. Thus, they have tried repeatedly to turn the Marshall plan and the military aid program to Europe into halfhearted gestures that would build up the free world too little and too late. This is the way the Republican Party be- haves in Congress. Can we expect better from the Republican candidate? He had his chance in this campaign to speak out in a strong and clear manner in support of his country's efforts for peace. I thought he surely would do it, but he chose instead to encourage the isolationists in his own party, and to adopt their line. He accepted their philosophy of slashing reck- lessly at the budget which supports our world peace effort. He has slurred and belittled the efforts of our allies. He has put fear in the hearts of free people all over the world by his loose talk about the fighting in Korea. His campaign tactics are injuring the unity with which this country is supporting the brave and necessary efforts of its fighting men there. He has talked about his coun- try's policies in such a way that Vishinsky has been able to use his statements in attack- ing this country in the United Nations. No, I do not think your chance for peace in the world lies in Republican isolationist policies of withdrawal, of feeble half measures, of appeasement and surrender. On all three of these great issues of our day — prosperity, civil rights, and world peace — the Democratic Party offers you a proven program. Moreover, it offers you, for President, a IOII [3i8] Oct. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents man of high and unchanging principles, a man of ideals, of experience, and of under- standing. I would like to tell you a little more, from a personal standpoint, about Adlai Stevenson. It was shortly after the people chose me as President in 1948 that I decided definitely that I would not run for President again. Two and a half years ago I put that decision down on a piece of paper that I still have. As 1952 approached, I began to think of the many good men in the Democratic Party who could carry on the programs and traditions of the party. I talked with several of them. One of them was a man I did not know very well, who had built up a tremendous reputation as Governor of Illinois. That was Adlai Stevenson. Adlai Stevenson did not want the nomi- nation. He is a man of humility, and he realized the weight of responsibility that the Presidency carries. He wanted for the next 4 years to be Governor of Illinois, and that is all he wanted. He had not budged from that decision by the time the National Democratic Conven- tion opened. Then, as you saw and heard by television and radio and through the press, the representatives of American de- mocracy drafted Adlai Stevenson. They wanted the best and the strongest man they could find, and he was their choice. It was a real, genuine draft — the only one in modern history. He responded to the draft because he believed in the programs of the Democratic Party. He was willing to subordinate his personal wishes to those of his fellow Democrats if they felt he was the best man to preserve and build on what had been accomplished. Governor Stevenson has made no com- mitments whatsoever to me, and I have not asked him for any, you can be sure of that. In the Presidency his men and his ideas will be his own. Governor Stevenson has proved himself since his nomination to be an even greater leader than any of us had really known. But all of you know him now. He has spoken to you many times in the last few weeks, and I know that he has inspired you. In his campaigning, he has shown a great respect for the intelligence of the American people. He has had the courage, in speak- ing to various groups, to tell them not what they wanted to hear but what he felt to be in the best interest of this great country. Now, my friends, real statesmen are rarities in the world's history. Once before out of Illinois came a man whose greatness was not fully appreciated until he became President — that was Abraham Lincoln. I believe, my friends, that Governor Stevenson is such a man. I urge you to vote next Tuesday to make him President of the United States. note: The President spoke at 10:30 p.m. at the State Fair Coliseum, Detroit, Mich. In his opening words he referred to Governor G. Mennen Williams of Michigan. Later he referred to Frank Murphy, As- sociate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1940-49, Senator Blair Moody of Michigan, Sena- tor Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan, 1928-51, and Andrei Vishinsky, Soviet Foreign Minister. The address was carried on a nationwide radio and television broadcast. 319 Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Ohio. October 31, 1952 [1.] Toledo, Ohio (Rear platform, 8:15 a.m.) You know, it has come to the point now where all the mammas in the audience point out to their children, "There's Margaret Truman's father." Now Mike has gotten around to introducing me that way. I am happy over it, anyway. She is one of my best assets, I want you to know, and my 1012 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 31 [319] wife is the other one. I am very happy to be back in Toledo again. I was here twice during 1948. The first time it was just about midnight, and in spite of the late hour, more than 7,000 of you came down to the station to greet me — and I never did forget that, and I never will. Then I came back just before the end of the cam- paign, and talked to a great crowd at an afternoon meeting in your civic auditorium. That is when I read old man Hartley's book to you. You folks helped carry Ohio for the Democratic Party. I appreciate that very highly — and I always will. When I was here in 1948, 1 was introduced down at the auditorium by a wonderful pub- lic servant, who was then the mayor of Toledo, and his name is Mike DiSalle. Since then the whole country has come to know and love Mike. The only people who don't like him are the Republican politicians. They have good reason not to like him, be- cause I don't know anybody who can do a better job of deflating a pompous Repub- lican politician than can Mike DiSalle. You just turn him loose in the Senate next year, and see what he will do to some of those old Republican windbags. I gave Mike DiSalle one of the toughest jobs in Washington, outside my own, when I made him head of price control. He was really on the hot seat. His job was to try to protect your pocketbook. To do that, he had to stand up against every selfish special in- terest in the country, and against almost all of the Republicans in Congress. And that is just exacdy what he did. And that is why all the special interests are fighting him now, and supporting the Republicans. That is also why every one of you ought to be for him. And of course I know you are. I hope you will send Tom Burke to Con- gress with Mike, and that you will continue your good government in Ohio with Frank Lausche for your Governor. The principal reason I am out on this tour — and I have been 18,000 miles, and I expect I have talked to 15 or 20 million people — is because I want you to put a man in the White House who will continue the policies of the Democratic Party. Now, send Adlai Stevenson to Washington as President of the United States, and John Sparkman as Vice President — and you can't make a mistake on that. You know, we Democrats have a big advantage in this campaign. We have made a record that we are proud to talk about. We have learned how to get and keep prosperity and full employment in this country — and we have done it throughout this difficult period after World War II. And on the international scene, we have taken the lead in forging an alliance of free countries so strong that the advance of com- munism has been checked and thrown back all over the globe — including Korea, where our boys are fighting so gallantly right now. The Republican Party can't run a cam- paign on the record. They are ashamed of their record — and they ought to be. So they are playing a game with the American peo- ple called "cover up the record." The first thing they did to cover up their miserable record was to find a candidate for President who had nothing whatever to do with making that record. They nominated a man who had made a great reputation as a war commander, and whose further repu- tation after the war was built in carrying out the foreign policy of the Democratic administration. They figured if they had a man to lead their ticket who was part of the Democratic record, and one with all kinds of glamour besides, people wouldn't think of him as a Republican, so they might not vote against him the way they would against any other Republican. Now I don't blame the Republicans for wanting to hide their record, but I don't think we ought to let them get away with it. That's the reason I have been going around the country showing the people what it is. And my — how they like it! And how the Republicans hate it! 55-672—66- -67 IOI3 [319] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents So I thought I could help best in this campaign by just going around and telling folks about the Republican record. I guess I have read more notes and more votes out of the Congressional Record than anybody ever read before. You know, the Congres- sional Record is the driest document in the world. I used to help to make it — and I know. Now in each talk I can only read a small part of the record. Since this is Mike DiSalle's hometown, I will pick out the Re- publican record on price control — and it's a honey ! You may have heard the Republican can- didate talk about the high cost of living. He blames it on the Democratic administra- tion. Have you ever heard him boast about his party's votes in Congress on price con- trol? No, indeed. He never mentions them. That's part of the terrible Republi- can record he is trying to cover up. That record starts back in 1946. After the war, it was perfectly obvious that we needed to keep price controls for the time being, until our civilian production could get back to normal. But the lobbies and the speculators, and their Republican friends in Congress, saw a chance to capitalize on the unrest that followed the war. They set up a great clamor to do away with controls immediately. They told you that price controls were keeping prices up. The National Association of Manufacturers ran full page ads promising that if controls were killed, prices would come tumbling right down. So the Republicans in Congress set out to kill controls. They finally succeeded, and the cost of living went up 15 percent in 6 months. I am sure you all remember that period, the worst inflationary rise in the his- tory of the country. Do you ever hear the Republican candidate say: Now I am standing on my party's record. We have killed controls, and we are proud of it. He doesn't say that. He is afraid to. You hear him, instead, deliver ringing speeches about how the dollar is now worth less than it used to be worth. He talks loud — and covers up the record. The dollar may be worth 57 cents, as they say, but you have got 10 times as many of them as you had before. In 1947 and 1948 I tried to get standby price control authority back on the statute books, but the Republicans were in control of Congress, and that "good-for-nothing, do- nothing" 80th Congress laughed at my efforts. Then the Korean emergency came along, and by the time we got a controls bill passed and the stabilization agencies established, the cost of living had gone up almost 8 per- cent in 6 months. Early in 195 1, after Mike DiSalle became Price Administrator, we put a general freeze on prices. But what did the Republicans do? They began a vicious attack on the basic price control legislation. Last year the Re- publicans voted 7 to 1 to curtail price roll- backs, and 12 to 1 to prevent effective control of black marketing in meat. And they put across that terrible Capehart amendment, which has already cost the American people a billion dollars in unnecessary price in' creases. That is your neighboring Senator over here in Indiana — I hope you won't send anybody else back there like him. This year the Republican Congressmen voted 4 to 1 to scuttle all price controls, and 6 to 1 to end all rent controls. Do you hear the Republican candidate boast about that record? The cost of living is higher than it ought to be, because the Republicans in Congress knifed controls. But in spite of high prices, most people are better off than they ever were before. That is because, un- der Democratic policies, production and in- come in this country have gone up a lot faster than prices in these past 20 years — twice as fast, in fact. The dollar is not worth as much as it used to be, as I said awhile ago, but people have a lot more of them than they ever had under any Republican administration. Now, this business of covering up the rec- ord extends to international affairs, too, and IOI4 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 31 [319] here the Republican candidate has to hide his own record along with his party's. I never thought, when this campaign be- gan, that any candidate would try to make a partisan issue out of Korea. When the Communists invaded Korea, we responded to that challenge as a united country. Re- publicans and Democrats alike knew that the invasion had to be met by force of arms, or we would be starting down that hopeless appeasement road that can only end in a world war, as it did before. But the Republican candidate thought that if he could divide the country, and turn people against the fight for freedom in Korea, he might pick up a few votes. It was a reck- less and cynical act that could only weaken the free world — but he tried to pull it. However, he forgot about the record. First, he said we never should have pulled our troops out of Korea in 1949. But in the record is a very important document show- ing that the Republican candidate himself, when he was Chief of Staff of the Army, recommended that procedure to the Presi- dent of the United States and to the Secre- tary of State. And I pulled that document on him, and he almost had a fit. He has been trying to squirm out of that one ever since. He even went so far, in his Detroit speech, as to deliberately misquote and falsify the rec- ord. That was a cheap trick that he must have learned from his new gutter playmate and political ally, Joe McCarthy. Then he said we should have built up the strength of the South Koreans. But the record shows his own party in Congress in 1949 and 1950 voted against aid for Korea. And the record shows we have built up a fine South Korean army, which is now pro- viding more than half of the frontline troops, and is providing a bigger proportion of those troops as rapidly as they can be trained and equipped. I hope you will look hard at the record of the Republican Party in this campaign. In domestic affairs it is a record of opposition to progress, a record of reaction. In foreign affairs it is a record of isolationism. And the Republican candidate in this campaign has shown that he has no qualms about hiding the record, and even when necessary trying to rewrite it. He forgot, I guess, that the man who is going around talking to the people knows more about the record and knows more about the things that have happened, and more about the budget, than any other man in the United States. And that is the reason I felt I owed a duty to tell you people what it is. That is one reason why it is vitally im- portant to every person in this country that we elect a man of honesty and principle for President — Adlai Stevenson. The other good reason is Adlai Stevenson's own outstanding ability and great capacity for leadership. Adlai Stevenson is pledged to carry forward the Democratic policies that have brought and maintained pros- perity. He is pledged to carry on our strug- gle for peace. He has the knowledge of civilian government and the experience — which are the essential requirements for both of these jobs. Now, none of you has any more important duty than to go to the polls next Tuesday and vote for the man who will direct our Government for the next 4 years. It is your business, if you are going to be the Govern- ment, as you should be — and you are the Government. Then you exercise your right to vote. And when you don't exercise it, you are shirking your duty — to the country, and to the world. I want you to think about these things. I want you to inform yourselves. Find out just exactly what the Republicans did when they had control of the Congress. Find out how they voted since. And then look at the Democratic record, and you will find the Republican record has been entirely for the big interests, and the special interests that don't give a hoot about the man who makes up the country. The Democratic interest has been for the common people — for the people that make up the country. And the record shows it. IOI5 [319] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents Now go to the polls and send Adlai Stevenson to Washington. [2.] Ottawa, Ohio (Rear platform, 9:58 a.m.) Well, it is wonderful to see you this morn- ing. I appreciate most highly that cordial welcome. I am very glad to be here in Ottawa again. I remember when I was here in Ottawa 4 years ago that your fine band was out to greet me. I understand that you have an even better one now. You know, I like music, and I appreciate any reception that takes music into consideration. I have been having a most pleasant trip through Ohio. From what I have seen, I think the people of Ohio know and under- stand what the issues are at stake in this election coming up Tuesday. As you go into that voting booth next Tuesday, I want you to think and remember that this is probably the most important election you will face in your lifetime. This election will probably determine whether we have peace or atomic war in the next few years. It will also determine whether this great Republic will continue to move forward to higher prosperity and a better life for the average man. Just the other day, somebody sent me a copy of a newspaper which is published right here in Ottawa, the Putnam County Sentinel. This paper has a fine editorial telling why it is coming out for Governor Stevenson for President. As you probably know, 90 percent of the press of this country is against Governor Stevenson. The press is opposing Governor Stevenson just like they fought me — just like they fought Franklin Roosevelt — just like they fought Abraham Lincoln, and every other President who did things for the aver- age man in this country. So it is very refreshing to see and read an independent newspaper like the Putnam County Sentinel. Let me read you a few words from this editorial, dated October the 24th: I0l6 "If we were voting for someone to direct our military forces, to lead us to victory on the battlefields, we would not hesitate one moment in endorsing Mr. Eisenhower. However, to lead this Nation politically and economically, our vote will go to Mr. Steven- son who has had administrative experience in dealing with local, State, and national programs; who is not only a specialist in one field, but who has had tried and proven experience in dealing and helping to solve problems of business — industry — laborers — and farmers. As Governor of the great State of Illinois, Mr. Stevenson has had that experience, plus his previous experience in meeting with leaders of the European na- tions on international affairs through his work with the United Nations. . . . We believe that he will make a great President." I hope you will remember these words in that editorial when you go to the polls next Tuesday. I hope you will remember that it is the Democratic Party which brought you good farm prices, rural electrification, social security, and all the other programs for the benefit of the people. Remember these things, and you will vote next Tuesday to send Dan Batt to the Con- gress, to reelect Governor Lausche, and to send that fighting liberal to the United States Senate— Mike DiSalle. And if you want good government for the next 4 years, you will vote to put Adlai Stevenson in the White House. Thank you very much. [3.] Sidney, Ohio (Rear platform, 11:24 a.m.) Thank you very much. I hope I can live up to that reputation. I am glad to be back here in Sidney again. When I was here in 1948 I talked about the fine work you did during the war. I understand that you are doing great work here today turning out machine tools. Work like that is very im- portant because it is part of a great effort to bring about world peace. We are building up our military forces Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 31 [319] and our military production so that we can have strong defenses against the threat of Communist aggression. The arms we are making have stopped Communist aggression in Korea. They are helping to hold the line against communism all around the world. We have been very successful in increasing defense production and maintaining civilian production at the same time. That really is an accomplishment, if you will just think about it. This has been due to the fact that the peo- ple in towns like this all over the country have done such a remarkable job. I am sure that we are going to carry this thing through to a successful conclusion and establish a firm basis for peace all around the world. Here is something else you should keep in mind. World peace depends on the strength and prosperity of American economy. When I was here in 1948 I gave you some facts about Democratic prosperity and full employment, and the efforts of that "do- nothing" 80th Congress to turn the clock back. And then you people in Shelby County went to the polls in 1948 and voted to continue prosperity. Now the issue is just exactly the same in 1952. Do you want to go back to the days of Republican breadlines, farm foreclosures, $3 hogs, and 15-cent corn? Or do you want to move forward to greater prosperity with the Democratic Party — the party that has al- ways fought for your interests and for the interests of the farmer, the worker, and the small businessman. That is just exactly what the Democratic Party has been doing under the New Deal and the Fair Deal for all the everyday, common people. And if you want to continue these pro- grams for the benefit of all the people, you will go to the polls next Tuesday, and you will vote for Carleton Reiser for Congress, you will send Mike DiSalle to the United States Senate, and reelect Frank Lausche as Governor of Ohio. And you must do some thinking on the national situation, when you get ready to cast your vote. You see, I have been going up and down this country trying to get peo- ple to think. I have been trying to get people to look up the records. The records are the things you ought to vote on. Study the record of the Republicans in the Congress. That will be the policy they will pursue. That is the only thing you have to go by. You know what the record of the Democrats has been in the Congress. They have been for the common everyday man, to let him have his fair share of the national income. We have balanced this situation by giving the farmers prosperity and giving the labor- ing man a fair deal and the ability to bargain with big business. And the big business- man and the little businessman have profited by it. If you will think of all these things, you can't help but make one decision, and that is to send Adlai Stevenson to the White House and have 4 more years of continuing good government. I thank you very much. [4.] Troy, Ohio (Rear platform, 12:15 p.m.) I have heard "The Star-Spangled Banner" at least 2,500 times since I started with the Government in 19 17, and I have never heard it done any better. Well done! I certainly appreciate your cordiality and this wonderful welcome you have given me this morning. It has been very good to see so much campaign enthusiasm in the great State of Ohio. I hope you will all go to the polls and vote on election day, because this is one of the most important elections in the history of the country. I understand that here in Troy you have a company that manufactures dishwashers. Now, believe it or not, dishwashing has be- come an issue in this campaign. The Re- publican candidate for President made a speech out in Boise, Idaho, in which he accused the Government of lots of terrible things, and here is what he said: "The Gov- ernment will do this and that, the Govern- ment does everything but come in and wash the dishes for the housewife." 1017 [319] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents After that, I pointed out to the Republican candidate that we Democrats had made a lot of progress on helping housewives to wash dishes. We have made it possible for many housewives to get cheap electricity so they can afford to have electric dishwashers to do the dishes. We have also made it pos- sible for many of them to have electric refrigerators and washing machines to do the clothes. We have brought electricity to millions of homes that never had it before. Right here in Miami County 98 percent of the farms have electricity today. Only 28 percent of the farms had electricity in Miami County in 1930. Now I have been reading the record on the Republicans for the past 2 months, and I have criticized them for lots of things. But there is one thing I will never accuse the Republicans of doing. Nobody can ac- cuse the Republican Party of doing anything to help the housewife wash the dishes, be- cause they just don't believe in that sort of thing. The Republicans are more interested in the problems of the big corporations than they are in the problems of people who have to wash their own dishes. They are too busy trying to open up loopholes in the tax laws for the special interest lobbies to spend much time trying to make life easier and better for the ordinary citizen. I am afraid that the Republican candidate is going to lose the dishwasher vote. I think he will lose the vote of the KP's who have had to wash dishes in the Army, too. You know, the Republicans have all the generals on their side. I want the privates and the corporals on mine. They have General MacArthur and General Wede- meyer and General Motors and General Foods — and the only general we have on our side is general welfare, and we work with him all the time. But the Republicans have all the generals. They can have all the generals, as I said awhile ago, but we will take the corporals and the privates and the KP's — and the housewives who wash dishes — and we will win the election. So I want you to go out to the polls next Tuesday and vote for general welfare — and for the whole Democratic ticket. Vote to send Carleton Reiser to Congress. Reelect Frank Lausche as Governor. Vote to send to the Senate a really great fighter for the average man — Mike DiSalle. And I know that better than anybody else, for I had him down there fighting for the com- mon, ordinary man, and he did a wonderful job — and he will do a good job for you in the Senate. To cap it all off, think a little bit about what is going on in the world. That is the only reason I am going up and down this country, explaining the situation to the peo- ple. I am trying to get the people to under- stand exactly what the issues are in this campaign. You can't find out from the Republican press, and you can't find out from the Republicans themselves, because they won't discuss the issues. But if you look at the thing as you should, and read the record — all you need do is read the record and find out how the Republicans in the Congress voted on those subjects and issues that are vital to you. Then find out how the Democrats voted. Then find out how you yourselves are situated. Remember that the welfare of the free world is at stake in this election — the welfare of the greatest Republic that the sun has ever shone on is at stake in this election. Your own welfare is at stake. Examine your own situation, now, and remember what it was when the Republicans had control of the country. And if you do that, you will go to the polls on November the 4th and you will send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and you will have 4 more years of good government. [5.] Dayton, Ohio (Memorial Hall, 1:10 p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this most cordial welcome. I appreciate the fact that your I0l8 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 31 [319] good Mayor and Mrs. Cox came to the sta- tion to meet me this morning, and I am sincerely sorry that Governor Cox can't be here this morning, but he sent me a note and told me that the doctor wouldn't let him come. I hope he will be in perfectly good shape, and that he will live a long, long time. I think he is one of the great men of this country. I have come here today with one purpose in view. I have come to ask you to vote for Adlai Stevenson for the President of the United States. For nearly 6 weeks now I have been cam- paigning up and down the country, urging the people to make him President of the United States and give him a solid Demo- cratic majority in the Congress — the kind of majority that will help him carry through the pledges in the platform of the Democratic Party. I have taken an active part in this cam- paign, not for my own sake but for the sake of the people in this country who have had confidence in me. I am a peculiar kind of Democrat, I think, because I am grateful to the Democratic Party for what it has done for me. I have had every honor that the Democratic Party can give a man, and I am here to tell you that I am not like some of these birds, after they get everything they can out of a party, to ring it out like an old sock and throw it aside, I am going to be a Democrat as long as I live. My only interest now is to be sure if I can, that I leave behind me in the White House a man who will work constantly for the plain ordinary people of this country as I have tried to do, and as Franklin Roosevelt tried to do before me. We have made great progress in this country in these past 20 years, great gains for the people — for the everyday people. I want to see those gains secured. I want to see still further progress, in the 4 years ahead. That is why I am campaigning for a Democratic victory on November the 4th. I am doing this for you — because your jobs, your welfare, your very hopes for peace, are all at stake in this election. Let me explain why this is so. For 20 years your Government has been working, under Democratic leadership, to secure prosperity and peace in the world. Much has been accomplished. You can surely see that right here in Dayton. Twenty years ago the economy of this city was knocked into a cocked hat. When the Republicans left office in 1932, Dayton was chiefly noted for the great number of un- employed and the amounts of money lost in its bank failures. Today your city is a thriving center of manufacturing and trade, with good jobs at good wages and a most promising eco- nomic future. As for peace, your country is now engaged in a great enterprise, rallying the strength of the whole free world to halt and counter the menace of Communist imperialism — and stop Communist aggression in its tracks. That is the meaning of Korea. We went into Korea to stop aggression there, before it could spread to some other place, closer to home. Korea is the common fight of all free people against Communist aggressors. Captain Jabara of Wichita, Kansas, put it right and simply when he said: "We are fighting in Korea now, so we won't have to fight in Wichita." I might say, so we won't have to fight in Dayton, Ohio. Now, my friends, the election on Novem- ber 4th — next Tuesday — is going to decide whether our country, and you people here, shall continue to make progress toward greater prosperity and lasting peace — or whether we shall slide backward toward depression and a world war. Why do I say this? I say it because I know what the Republicans are really after. I know from experience what they will do, because I have been fighting them ever since I first came to the Senate, 17 years ago. And I know them pretty well. What they will do is to follow reactionary policies at home, and isolationist policies abroad. The Republican Party is still the party of 1019 [319] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents big business, big lobbies — big banks, great corporations, the oil lobby, the power lobby, the real estate lobby, and all the rest. These are the fellows who pay the party's bills and lay down the policies for the candidate to follow. As evidence of this, I offer you the testi- mony of your own senior Senator, "Mr. Republican" himself. If anybody knows what goes on in his party, Senator Taft is surely the man. The other day the Indianap- olis Times printed his own story of how and why the Republican's candidate came to be nominated for President. Let me read this to you, I quote from the issue of October 12. It says: "Senator Robert A. Taft believes he lost the 1952 Republican nomination for Presi- dent because of 'New York financial inter- ests' and the fact many newspapers 'turned themselves into propaganda sheets' for his opponent, General D wight D. Eisenhower." Then it goes on to say: "The cause of defeat, as listed by Senator Taft: 'First it was the power of the New York financial interests and a large number of businesses subject to New York influence, who had selected General Eisenhower as their candidate at least a year ago.' " That ends the quote from Senator Taft. And that tells the story of who is running the Republican candidate. And what does that mean to you ? Well, remember the record of that Republican 80th Congress. In that Congress it meant the Taft-Hartley antilabor law. It meant reduc- tion in social security coverage. It meant tax relief for the rich. It meant the "sliding scale" of price supports for farmers. And remember, the Republican platform this year endorses the 80th Congress and all its acts. My friends, these people have not changed a bit in the last 4 years. They are still bit- terly opposed to almost all the progressive measures that the New Deal and the Fair Deal have accomplished for the people. Think that over, my friends. Your wel- fare is at stake. When you go to the polls on Tuesday, you'll be voting for your own pay- check. Remember that. And remember too, that you'll be voting for your future and your children's future. You'll be voting for your chances for a peace- ful world. The Republican candidate for President has now promised to put tax relief ahead of national security. He has promised huge cuts in Federal expenditures for national de- fense and aid for our allies. He has never said specifically, what part of our defenses he would cut. But it is ob- vious that he would have to make extraor- dinary slashes in our military establish- ment. He would have to reduce the number of air groups, cut down the ground forces, eliminate reserve training, lay up warships. He would have to stop procurement of new weapons and supplies, and cancel research projects such as those you are conducting at Wright Field right now. He would have to do not one, but many things in order to make good on the savings he has promised so care- lessly. Cuts of the size he has proposed would also have to come out of the aid we give to our allies to help them defend themselves against communism. He has not said how he would handle this — whether he would cut off some countries entirely, or slash them across the board, leaving them all with in- adequate assistance. But whichever way it is done, it would be a heavy blow to the morale and the safety of our allies in Europe and in Asia. This kind of budget cutting means a policy of weak defenses here at home. It means weak defenses for our allies abroad. This, my friends, is no time for the United States to put into the White House a profes- sional soldier who owes his nomination to the Wall Street bankers. My friends, this is no time to place within one heart beat from the White House a young man of very limited experience, whose expenses are paid by oil men, real estate men, and tax lawyers. And finally, this is no time to put the Con- 1020 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 31 [319] gress in the hands of the reactionary, isola- tionist Old Guard Republicans. That kind of combination cannot be trusted with the welfare of our people, the prosperity of our country, or the peace of the world. My friends, if you are concerned about these things, you will go to the polls next Tuesday and vote the Democratic ticket. I urge upon you: Be sure you do vote — and get your friends and neighbors to vote, too. Those who stay at home on election day have only themselves to blame if they are saddled with bad government for 4 long years. Go to the polls. And vote in your own in- terests, and your country's interest. In fact, vote for yourselves. If you do that, then Mike DiSalle will go to the Senate, to fight for you as hard and faithfully as he did when he was running price controls. Tom Talbot will go to Con- gress, where he will represent your interests well. Frank Lausche will remain in your State capital, giving good government just as he has been doing. And the next President of the United States will be a man who's proved by all he's done that he is honest enough and coura- geous enough to face and meet the problems of the next 4 years. That man is the most able, most progressive Governor your neigh- boring State of Illinois has ever had — Adlai Stevenson. [6.] Hamilton, Ohio (Rear platform, 2:23 p.m.) I thank you most sincerely for this won- derful welcome. I remember the wonderful reception you gave me when I was here 4 years ago. I remember the way you voted on election day — and I appreciate it. I want you to do even better for the man who is heading the Democratic ticket this year — and that is Adlai Stevenson. I have been delighted with the way people all over the country have been turning out to listen to my speeches on these campaign trips during the past month. It shows that the people are interested in learning about the issues in this election. And I have been do- ing everything in my power to see that they get the facts. I have been making this special effort because I consider this election about the most important one for the people of this Nation since the Civil War. Make no mistake about it, the decisions you make next Tuesday will determine whether or not this country will continue on the road to lasting prosperity and world peace. For 20 years now, our people have counted upon the Democratic Party to work for these conditions, and we have not let the people down. We have developed sound policies of social security, and full employ- ment for the workingman. We have devel- oped agricultural programs to assure the farmer a fair share of the national income for his efforts. We have never once lost sight of the special problems of the small business- man and the housewife. As a result, our country enjoys a prosperity it never knew before in its history. We have developed the foreign policy pro- grams which today unify the free nations of the world in their determined stand against Soviet aggression. The hope of all civiliza- tion for world peace rests upon our leader- ship. In this election the Republican Party is asking the people of this country to turn over to them the responsibility for leadership in the 4 years ahead of us. By his "me too" statements of the past few days, the Repub- lican candidate for President has been trying to make you believe his party will carry out the Democratic programs that have brought such great returns to this country. But this year, as always, the Republican campaign and the Republican Party are con- trolled by the same Old Guard reactionaries who have opposed every program of the New Deal and the Fair Deal for the past 20 years. We will have much to regret if the Re- publican Party is given the opportunity to undermine the social and economic advances 55-672— «&- -^Q8 1021 [319] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents we have made since 1932. But it will be an even greater tragedy if they are given a chance to tear apart the work we have done for world peace. The great threat to the free world today is Soviet expansion. No responsible person denies this. And our international programs have been directed toward meeting that threat without bringing on a third world war. That means we have to build up our military strength and the strength of our allies. That means we must rely on inter- national cooperation so all free nations can stand together in opposing Communist ag- gression. But the vast majority of the Re- publicans in Congress just don't seem to see things that way. They never learn a lesson. They vote time and again to cripple the very programs that have meant so much to the free world today. If they had their way, we would be stand- ing alone in our opposition to the Russians. Instead of fighting in Korea, we might be fighting in Ohio. I don't believe the voters of this country are going to let these reac- tionary Republicans get a chance to wreck what we have done in the past 20 years. I know they won't let this happen, if they just inform themselves on the record of the Republican opposition to everything that has been good for all the people of this country. So, study the record. That is what I am asking you to do. I am asking you to use your head. Do a little thinking, and then vote in your own interests — and be sure that your friends vote in your interests. If you do that, you will send Tom Talbot to the Congress, Mike DiSalle will be your new Senator from Ohio, Frank Lausche will remain in the Governor's chair, and we will have 4 years of good government under the leadership of Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. note: In the course of his remarks on October 31 the President referred to Michael V. DiSalle, former mayor of Toledo, former Director of the Office of Price Stabilization, and Democratic candidate for Senator, Thomas H. Burke, Democratic candidate for Representative, and Governor Frank J. Lausche, all of Ohio, and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wiscon- sin. The President also referred to Dan Batt and Carleton C. Reiser, Democratic candidates for Repre- sentative, Mayor Louis Lohrey of Dayton, former Governor and Mrs. James M. Cox, Senator Robert A. Taft, and Thomas B. Talbot, Democratic candi- date for Representative, all of Ohio. The President's remarks in Toledo were broad- cast over radio and television. 320 Address at the Music Hall in Cincinnati. October 31, 1952 THANK YOU very, very much for this wonderful reception. I am always glad to visit Cincinnati. It is one of the grandest cities of this great Republic. If you have not been informed, I am out campaigning for a Democratic victory on Tuesday. You have a very, very fine slate of Democratic candidates here in Ohio. I have a very high regard for your can- didate for United States Senator — Mike DiSalle. Mike took on one of the most dif- ficult and thankless jobs in the whole United States Government — that of running price control. Every selfish special interest in the country was out to get Mike, and they had a lot of help from the Republican opposition in Congress, too. But Mike stuck to his guns, and worked for the people. And he deserves a chance to do the same kind of job for the people in the Senate as he did as Price Control Administrator. I hope you will put two good Democrats in the House of Representatives — Walter Kelly and Earl Wagner. And give us a Democratic clean sweep by putting Frank Lausche back in the Governor's chair. He will make you a good Governor. Now, my friends, we are honored with a visit from an outstanding Kentuckian. He 1022 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 31 [320] is from the 5th District of Kentucky. He is chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives, and he is one of the great Members of that House — Brent Spence of Kentucky. And most of all, I'm here tonight to urge the election of the Democratic candidates for President and Vice President — Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. This year we have witnessed a most un- usual kind of campaign. On the Democratic side we have a candi- date for President who has presented a posi- tive and practical program to the American people. He has not indulged in easy gen- eralities or glib promises. You know where he stands and what he believes in. He un- derstands the issues and his beliefs are deep and genuine. He has demonstrated that he has the abilities needed for the greatest politi- cal office in the world. In fact, the Presi- dency of the United States is the greatest office in the history of the world. On the Republican side, however, we have a campaign that in many ways resembles a soap-selling drive. Now the soap they are trying to sell is the same old soap. It's the kind we bought in the 1920's. It's a program of reaction in domestic measures, and isolationism in for- eign policy. It is a program of government by the few, for the exploitation of the many, instead of a program for the people and by the people. The people have been refusing to buy that old piece of soap, now, for the past 20 years. Things have been getting tough for the Republicans. This year they knew they had a real selling job and they knew a new selling job would have to be done or the Grand Old Soap Company would go bankrupt. Now, of course, the smart thing to do would have been to change the product. But the company's stockholders said no. So they decided to get a new package. They decided to do this by getting a general as their can- didate, with a lot of military glamor. A good many Republicans at the Chicago Convention thought that was wrong. They wanted to put the soap in a plain, honest, conservative package — one manufactured right here in Cincinnati — and let it be sold on its merits. Now I honestly think they ought to have let Bob Taft have the nomi- nation. He was the best representative of their party, and what it stands for, and he deserved that nomination. But the advertising experts said no. They said this soap hasn't been sold for 20 years, and it won't sell this time unless it looks a little different. We must have it all dec- orated as a good brand should be, with a lot of silver stars and polished brass. The next thing to do in this kind of a selling campaign was to get a new name for the soap. Those old names hadn't worked. GOP was too old-fashioned. The "unity" label didn't sell anything in 1948. So this time they named it "The Great Crusade." Then they had to have a slogan for a sales drive. "Back to McKinley"? No, that may be an honest slogan but it doesn't have the right kind of ring to it. It doesn't sound right to run a crusade backwards. "Ninety-nine and 44/100 percent pure"? Well, they were using that for awhile; and then somebody started asking questions about their vice-presidential candidate, and some of the other great crusaders, so they dropped it. It is not good to have a slogan that backfires. So they decided on this one: "It's time for a change." Whatever soap you are now using, they tell you, switch to our new brand. If you do that, you will have no more problems. Use an entire package, and you can clean up all the fears of depression and unemployment. You can wash away the whole problem of Korea with one simple application. And finally, to sell the soap, the Republi- cans needed money and a good advertising firm. They did not have to worry about the money. Senator Taft has said that the New York financial interests were responsible for selecting the candidate, and I suppose they IO23 [320] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents have been financing the campaign. It is probably one of the most expensive cam- paigns in history. The Republicans hired an advertising firm, one of the best. And this firm has been doing a wonderful job. They make the ordinary politician look like a relic of the horse and buggy days. A national magazine — one that is sup- porting the Republican candidate for Presi- dent— referred to his campaign the other day as "Operation Ticker Tape." It said: "These Eisenhower rallies are planned down to the last handful of confetti. Take San Francisco, for example. The story has it that 4 tons of confetti — think of 4 tons of that stuff — 4 tons! — were distrib- uted the day before the Eisenhower parade. A hundred thousand printed placards and thousands of * We Like Ike' signs were peddled around town long before the Gen- eral arrived." That's a really professional job. And they hire cheerleaders too, to work up enthusiasm for the candidate. Now, I never hired a cheerleader in my life, or bought a nickel's worth of confetti. Never bought any of that stuff, or hired any of these people for any of my campaigns, and I have had pretty good luck, you know. Adlai Stevenson doesn't believe in that kind of hooey, either. Then the Republicans have a campaign of radio commercials. Little short ones like this: "General Eisenhower, I am bothered by high prices, what shall I do?" The an- swer comes right back: "Just switch to that new delicious Republican brand of govern- ment, and vote for me." And then they even provided soap opera — which is one of the tried and true ways to sell soap. They had the traditional cast — a young veteran, his wife, children, tears, pathos — even a little dog. But they had very few facts about where that money went — and where it really comes from. And no reason at all for making him Vice President. Now the purpose of this elaborate cam- paign is to get the American people to adopt certain policies of government. But these policies are never unwrapped, or explained, or tested. This new form of advertising is very, very vague about the product. This great selling campaign is just as fraudulent with respect to its foreign policy product as it is with respect to its domestic policy product. My friends, this can be very dangerous. When we talk about foreign policy, we are talking about deadly serious business. Foreign policy may mean freedom or slavery for this great country of ours; it may mean life or death for millions of our citizens. In our foreign policy decisions, there is no room for high pressure advertising meth- ods. If anybody tries to sell you a simple foreign policy remedy, you ought to make him sit right down and unwrap the pack- age, and tell you about every single ingre- dient. False labeling here can do more harm than anywhere else. The world situation, my friends, is very serious. I do not have to tell you that. A powerful group in the Soviet Union has turned to subversion and aggression in an effort to dominate the world. We have seen this kind of thing before. We have met it and we have defeated it. But the last time we did not do enough, soon enough, so we had to fight a big and terrible war later on. If anybody tells you that this is play, that it is easy, and that it can be done without an effort, you had better watch him, you had better lock your smokehouse, because he's not telling you the truth. This time we are trying to handle the danger without having to fight a world war. That is why we are building up our defenses, and making alliances, and strengthening the other free nations — to prevent a third world war. That is why we had to fight in Korea, and stop armed aggression there — to prevent another world war. This, my friends, is our foreign policy. Most people who know the facts agree with that policy. But there is a group of Re- 1024 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Oct. 31 [320] publican leaders who do not agree with it. They are blind to the danger in the world. They believe they can get votes by making political capital out of all the work and sac- rifice we have to undergo at this time to keep our country safe. Long before this election campaign began, these Republican leaders were on a rampage against our foreign policy. One of their techniques is to attack the honesty and the loyalty of the men in your Government who are working on this foreign policy. They have attacked our civilian leaders, living and dead — they have attacked our State Depart- ment, they have attacked our foreign serv- ice— they have attacked our military leaders. They attacked General Marshall, and they attacked the man who has since become the candidate of their own party for President. This is a contemptible kind of political warfare. The men in our Government who are responsible for our national safety have to make some tremendously difficult deci- sions. They do not make those decisions as Republicans or Democrats — they make them as devoted public servants, dedicated to the welfare of this great country. Furthermore, the men who make these de- cisions are often unable to defend themselves against criticism. They have to work with secret information, and they cannot explain their recommendations publicly because that would release valuable information to the enemy. This, of course, makes it easier for the unscrupulous politicians to slander and to smear them. Now, one of the decisions the Republicans have been attacking — for a long time — is the withdrawal of United States troops from Korea in 1948 and 1949. When the Re- publican candidate for President began his campaign, these reckless politicians gathered around him and persuaded him to make their criticism of this decision a part of his "great crusade." They persuaded him to make unfair, inflammatory speeches, saying this decision was wrong, and blaming the State Department for it. Now, of course, no decision is above honest criticism. And I am not surprised that the Republican isolationists should attack this particular decision violently. But for the Republican candidate to attack it, in this way, is another matter. He knows what a difficult decision it was, because he was in- volved in it and he helped to make it. This decision involved our military leaders and our State Department officials. It in- volved questions of military strategy, of ac- tion by the United Nations, by the Koreans, by the Russians, by the Congress. There was no easy answer — and there was danger whichever way we moved — and a lot of the factors had to be kept secret. I would never have talked about this thing publicly if the Republican candidate had not first made it the object of his unprincipled attacks. But let me tell you, I am not going to stand idly by while he tries to ruin the reputation of his former colleagues and fellow workers in the service. Bear with me while I give you a few of the facts. Our military leaders wanted to get our troops out of Korea, beginning in 1947. As time went on, the State Depart- ment was more and more reluctant to see it done. Both agencies had good and honest reasons for their respective opinions. But our officials checked their views all around — they checked with General MacArthur, with the Korean Government, which was urging withdrawal, with the United Nations. They were all in accord on the withdrawal. Our military services were arming and train- ing South Korean forces; we were planning to furnish economic and military aid; Korea had made real progress since 1946. Taking these factors into account, it was decided to make our withdrawal complete in 1949. Now that may have been the right deci- sion, or it may have been the wrong deci- sion, but I want to defend the honesty and the judgment of all the Government officials who took part in it. I want to defend the honest judgment of our civilian officials who took part in it, and of our military officials — IO25 [320] Oct. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents including even that of the Republican can- didate for President, who recommended this withdrawal when he was Chief of Staff of the Army, in 1947. Now when the Republican candidate first started his attacks on this decision, he did not tell the people that he, too, had a large degree of responsibility for it himself. I brought the fact out and, ever since, the Republican candidate for President has been twisting and squirming, in an effort to get out of his share of the responsibility. He said first that his opinion was a purely theoretical one, having to do with the strate- gic value of Korea in case of a general war. Well, that is not true. The opinion in which he joined as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did say that Korea would have little strategic value in the event of a general war, but it also gave good and urgent reasons for getting the troops out right away. Then the Republican candidate said that his opinion was a purely military one, but that the decision was a political one, and that he should not be blamed. Now that is pure poppycock and gobbledegook. Everyone knows that the grave decisions in this cold war are mixed military and political ones. You can't make a diplomatic or political deci- sion until you know what your military re- sources are, what your generals are capable of doing and what they are willing to do. Next, the Republican candidate tried to get out of his share of the responsibility by rewriting the facts and distorting the record. He did that in a speech in Detroit just the other night. I replied to him point by point, in a statement which you probably never saw — because the one-party press has a lot of trouble finding space to print the truth when I bring it out. And finally, his last defense is, that I shouldn't bring these facts out, because they are still classified as "Top Secret." That means that he wants to be free to attack his old friends and colleagues for bad judgment, when they can't reply to him because his mistakes are still labeled "Top Secret." Now, I wouldn't have gone into all this at such length, if he hadn't been peddling a new remedy lately — a new patent medicine, a newly-wrapped package of soap — for our troubles in Korea. This was to be his great masterstroke to win the election. Actually, I'm told it was an idea worked up by a new ghost writer on his political staff. But the idea is that he shall make a trip to Korea, and see what can be done. Of course, it's all right with me if he wants to go to Korea. But don't let anybody think that's going to solve anything. He went to Korea once before — in 1946. According to his speeches, our decision to withdraw our troops was wrong — yet he helped to make it — by the advice he gave in 1947 after his visit to Korea. If he was wrong in 1947 there is no reason to suppose that he would be right in 1953. He can't bring our troops home any sooner than the other good generals working on the Korean problem can. Yet this is what he is trying to promise you. To back it up he has produced a copy of a personal letter from General Van Fleet — our commanding general in Korea — about the training of more South Korean divisions. The candidate wants to make you think this Government is against training more Koreans. That is not so at all. The facts are, we planned a Korean army of 10 divisions. While General Van Fleet was carrying this out, General Van Fleet suggested adding more divisions. His sug- gestion was considered by General Ridgway and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and by the Secretary of Defense. They recommended that we complete the 10 division program first. So we went ahead and now we have a South Korean army of 400,000 men, with more South Koreans in the frontline today than the United States and other United Na- tions have. When General Clark succeeded General Ridgway in the Far East, he was told to step up the expansion of the South Korean army and the replacement of United States 1026 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Oct. 31 [320] troops by South Koreans. This is what he is doing. General Clark has already rec- ommended an increase in the number of divisions in the South Korean army, and those recommendations have been ap- proved— by me. Yet in his desperate attempt to get votes, the Republican candidate would have you be- lieve that General Ridgway, General Clark, General Collins, General Bradley, General Vandenberg, Admiral Fechteler, Secretary Pace, and Secretary Lovett are all just not interested in saving the lives of American boys and building up the South Korean army. Now, my friends, just how far can a man go in impugning the character and patriotism of his former associates? That hurts me. That makes me feel ter- ribly bad, because I had the utmost con- fidence in General Eisenhower's integrity and ability; and I made him Chief of Staff, and I sent him to Europe for the greatest and most honorable command that any general can have. And I had no idea that he would pull stunts like he is pulling in this awful campaign. It makes me sad. Let me tell you, your Government is do- ing everything it can to bring the Korean fighting to a conclusion. We are trying to shorten the service of our men there, and protect their lives. And we shall succeed in Korea, just as we shall succeed in this whole great struggle to save freedom and prevent another world war. Now, I ask you, look at this Republican advertising campaign long and hard before you buy their product. Look at their record, and look at their program. Look at their candidate for President, and at what he has said and done in this campaign. Ask your- self if you want a professional military man in the White House. Ask yourself whether you can trust such a man with the great is- sues of our prosperity at home, of our social welfare and of our struggle to prevent war. And while you are looking, you might look at the Republican vice-presidential can- didate, too. Ask yourself whether you want a man with that kind of an unsavory finan- cial record, and that kind of a reactionary voting record, as a potential President. Fortunately, you have another choice. And that is the choice you should make. Vote for two of the best candidates who have ever been offered to the people — men who know civilian government, men who are clean and honest and courageous, men who are dedicated to the great programs that have made our country strong and prosperous at home, men who are heart and soul in this great effort of ours to attain world peace. Vote for the candidates of the Democratic Party — the party that has guided this Nation to its present high levels of prosperity and power — the party that believes in the people, and in the people's future. Send John Sparkman and Adlai Steven- son of Illinois to Washington! note: The President spoke at 9 p.m. at the Music Hall, Cincinnati, Ohio. During his remarks he referred to Michael V. DiSalle, Democratic candi- date for Senator, Walter A. Kelly and Earl T. Wag- ner, Democratic candidates for Representative, and Governor Frank J. Lausche, all of Ohio, Representa- tive Brent Spence of Kentucky, Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower, General of the Army George C. Mar- shall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, former Com- mander in Chief of the Far East Command, General James Van Fleet, General Matthew B. Ridgway, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, Robert A. Lovett, Secretary of Defense, General Mark W. Clark, Commander in Chief of the Far East Com- mand, Generals J. Lawton Collins, Omar N. Bradley, and Hoyt S. Vandenberg, Admiral William Fech- teler, and Frank Pace, Jr., Secretary of the Army. The address was carried on a television and radio broadcast. 1027 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents 321 Rear Platform Remarks in Indiana and Illinois. November 1, 1952 [1.] Vincennes, Indiana (Rear platform, 7:20 a.m.) . . . greet your President. It is a pleasure to me, and I feel it as a great compliment. You know, I am in this thing because I think the welfare of the country and the world is at stake. I have been your President for a little over 7 years. I have tried to give you the best service possible. I could have run again, but I felt that leadership should be con- tinuous, that one man should not be placed in the control of the Government. I will be 69 years old in May, and that is far beyond the retirement years for military men. I have been going up and down the coun- try telling people what I believe they ought to hear. I am trying to get them to think. I am trying to get them to understand what the issues are, and I have put the issues be- fore the country, and I think people have started to think. And I hope you will do some thinking. I am in earnest about that. It is necessary that you understand just exactly the situation with which we are faced. We have been fighting a cold war. We wanted peace after the Second World War was over. We did everything we possibly could to get it. We signed agreements with all the world powers. Those agreements have been broken and not kept by the So- viets. They have made every effort possible to take over the free world. We can't allow that to happen, because if they take over the free world, we will have our backs to the wall by ourselves facing this situation. That is the reason we have been willing to help our allies improve their position of defense. That is the reason we have been improving our own defenses. That is the reason we have to meet aggression in Korea. Now there is a young man, a captain of the Army in Korea, who lived in Wichita, Kansas, and he came back home on this rota- tion program that we have for bringing the soldiers back in turn. And they asked him down there in Wichita what he thought about the situation and why we were fighting in Korea. Well, he said, all the soldiers and all the men in Korea understand why we are fighting there, the only confusion is in the United States, and that has been put up there purposely for political purposes. He said we are fighting in Korea so we won't have to fight in Wichita. And that is the answer, my friends. We are holding this aggressive approach back, trying to pre- vent an embroilment of the whole world in another war. We are trying to put before the country the principles and the policy of the Democratic Party over the last 20 years, which has brought about a prosperity that has never existed in any country in the his- tory of the world, except this one, over the last 20 years. We have tried to bring about a social balance. We have tried to make it possible for the farmer to have a good income. We have made it possible for labor to be in a bargaining position where they could talk to the big fellows who control things. And if you will study the situation, you will find that the income of the farmer, the income of the man who works, and the income of the small businessman, and the income of the big businessman — believe it or not — is better than it ever has been in the history of the world. I want you to take all these things into consideration, and if you think about them — I am not trying to high-pressure you into doing anything — I want you to think about the situation, I want you to think about the situation of the free world, I want you to think about the situation of your own great country, and I want you to think about your own welfare, and what it means to you, to have a situation continue which gives every- body a fair deal and a fair chance. If you do that, you can't do anything else IO28 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [321] but send Adlai Stevenson to the White House, and we will just have 4 more years of good government. [2.] Terre Haute, Indiana (Rear plat- form, 8:50 a.m.) I am happy to be back in Terre Haute today, on my way home to Missouri to vote next Tuesday. For the President and the Vice President of the United States, I am going to vote for Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman, and I hope all the rest of you do. And I hope you will vote for the right kind of Democratic Congress that will back those two gentlemen up. For nearly 6 weeks now, I have been traveling across the country urging people to think about their responsibilities in the election next Tuesday. This is a tremendously important election, important to our country and to every one of you. For what is said and done by the Government we vote into power on Novem- ber the 4th, may well decide whether we shall have prosperity or depression — peace or war. Now, the election of a President, the man who is to lead this country in times of crisis and decision, is not something to be taken lightly, I think you understand that very well. One of the principal reasons why I have been going up and down the country has been to try to get people to think. If they will just think, they can't do but one thing. This is not a popularity contest. This is a matter of bread and butter — your bread and butter. It is a matter of your safety and your children's safety in this atomic age. The President of the United States, my friends, must make some of the hardest and gravest decisions ever given to any man to make. And nobody knows that better than I do. This is why I have spent so much time in this campaign urging the voters to consider very carefully the qualifications of the two presidential candidates. I have also urged the people to consider the qualifications of the candidates for Vice President, the men who would stand just one heartbeat from the highest office in our land. Now this raises a problem I should like to talk to you about today. Only three Presidents in our history were older when they were first inaugurated than the Republican candidate for President would be if he were elected. He would be only 1 year younger than President Roose- velt was when he died. Seven of our Presi- dents have died in office and have been succeeded by their Vice President. I think you will agree that it is important for us to know just what kind of man the Republican candidate for President has chosen as his running mate. Richard Nixon's entire experience in po- litical office consists of the 4 years he spent in the House of Representatives from 1946 to 1950, and the 2 years he's been in the Senate since. That is not a very long career to prepare a man for the Presidency. But it has been time enough for him to show beyond a doubt that he is one of the most thoroughgoing reactionaries in public life today. Senator Nixon's voting record has always been reactionary on domestic policy and frequently isolationist on foreign policy. He is an outstanding example of young blood in the hardened arteries of the Republican Old Guard. He expresses clearly the close connection between the Republican leader- ship in the Congress and the big business and financial interests who pay the party's bills and set the policies it follows. You may have heard something about the contributions a "millionaires' club" made to help Richard Nixon get along in life. They gave him a fund of $18,000 — almost $900 a month — while he was Senator. Now, I'm not going to express any opinion about that fund — whether it was ethical or not. I leave IO29 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents that to you to judge. But I do want to call to your attention the fact that Senator Nixon has proved himself a good investment for those fund contributors. That "millionaires' club" included men whose business interests were oil, real estate, big manufacturing, banking, and insurance. Now, I urge you to compare these interests with the way the Republican vice-presiden- tial candidate has voted in the Congress. You'll find out why they thought he was worth a little subsidy. Let me give you some examples: The Republican candidate for Vice President voted to give away your offshore oil — oil the Supreme Court says belongs to you and all the rest of the people in this country. That's why the oil men like him so much. He has voted against the people on low- rent housing, on slum clearance, on farm housing, and on effective rent controls. That's why the real estate crowd thinks so much of him. He has voted time after time against effective price controls. That's one reason why the big corporations like him so much. He was one of the leaders in the fight for the House version of the Taft-Hardey Act — which was even more violently antilabor than the final product. That's why he's a favorite of the National Association of Manufacturers. He has voted for cutbacks in social se- curity, and against the expansion of the social security program. That's one of the reasons he's in good with some of the big insurance executives, who still don't realize that social security has helped the private insurance companies. He has voted against the people in sup- porting special tax benefits for big business and the rich — and he has opposed making them pay their fair share of our defense costs. That is one of the reasons why all the money interests have befriended him. Even where the big business lobbies do not seem to have a special axe to grind, Senator Nixon has followed a pattern of voting against measures that mean progress for the ordinary people of this country. He comes from California, a western State with a fine liberal tradition. Yet, he has consistendy voted wrong on civil rights. He comes from a part of the country that has been traditionally internationalist in out- look, with special interests in the countries of the Far East. Yet his voting record on our programs of international cooperation is little better than that of the most isola- tionist Republicans. And he actually cast the deciding vote against aid to the Republic of Korea, 5 months before the Communist invasion of that country. These, my friends, are only highlights of the record that this man has made in his short career in public life. I have not time to tell you of his many votes against farm programs, against the electric power pro- grams, against our efforts to correct the dis- criminatory features of the immigration laws. But as you might expect, he has voted wrong on all these things and many more every time he has had a chance. Now, these are the facts that show the attitudes and outlook of the man who might well become President of the United States, if the Republicans should win the election next Tuesday. It is a dismal prospect, one that should make you think long and carefully before you vote. These facts came out of the Con- gressional Record. You can verify them. If you have got time and the inclination, go to the library and get the Congressional Record and see the facts just as I have stated to you. That is what I have been doing all up and down the country. I have been tell- ing the facts. The Republican Old Guard doesn't like it. They can't stand the facts. It is a good thing for this Republic that the people need not make a choice like that. Fortunately, the Democratic Party offers you a fine alternative. On the Democratic side, you have not only a presidential candidate of outstanding ability and a deep comprehension of the American liberal tradition, but you have a fine vice-presidential candidate with one of IO30 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [321] the most distinguished liberal careers in the Congress. Senator Sparkman's voting record shows very plainly that he has been on the side of the people as consistently as Senator Nixon has been against them. Though he comes from the South, he helped to write the finest plank on civil rights that has ever appeared in the platform of either party. He stands squarely on that platform as an outstanding progressive southerner. He is an honorable man, and when he tells you that he stands on the platform, he means it, and he will carry it out. Don't take a chance with your vote next Tuesday. There is too much at stake. You can't afford to turn this great country of ours back to the Old Guard Republicans. They brought on the Great Depression of the 1930's, and their isolationist foreign policies would throw to the winds the allies we must have in our fight for freedom. That would greatly increase the danger of another world war. Be sure of your own welfare when you vote next Tuesday. Cast your vote for pros- perity at home and for a strong defense against Communist aggression abroad. I am urging you to vote the Democratic ticket. Send Governor Schricker to the Senate. Send Jack Mankin to the House of Repre- sentatives. Send John Watkins to the Gov- ernor's office in Indianapolis. And then wind up your voting career by voting for Adlai Stevenson and John Spark- man, and we will have 4 more years of good government. [3.] Danville, Illinois (Rear platform, 11:28 a.m.) I am more than happy to be back in Dan- ville once again. When I was here in 1948 I asked you to vote for Adlai Stevenson for Governor of Illinois. He has been a great Governor, as you know. I only hope that by this time all the people of the United States know Adlai Stevenson, too. If they do, there is no question but what he will be the next President of the United States, and a President who will rank in history with the other great President who came from Illinois, Abraham Lincoln. You know, I got acquainted with politics when I was 8 years old. That was back in 1892, when Adlai Stevenson's grandfather was running for Vice President with Grover Cleveland. I had a campaign cap which said "Cleveland and Stevenson" on it. Some big Republican boys took my cap away from me and tore it up — and the Republicans have been trying to snatch things away from me ever since. They have never had much luck at it, though. We just don't let them get away with it. What's more, I don't think the American people are going to let the Republicans take away the gains you have made in the past 20 years. I have made over 200 speeches and traveled 18,000 miles during this campaign, to give the people the facts on the Republican record and the Democratic record. Just read the record for yourselves and you will see that the Republican Party has been consistendy against the things for which the New Deal and the Fair Deal have stood for the welfare of the country. They voted against farm price supports, against social security, against minimum wage laws, against public housing, against full employment measures — they have been against everything that is for the welfare of the people. On the other hand, you will see that the Democratic Party has always fought for the welfare of the people, and has brought this country to the greatest prosperity we have ever known. About the only thing the Republicans are for is what they call a "change." I have a copy here of the October 26th Danville Com- mercial-News. You all know this paper doesn't like the Democrats any more than most of the publishers in the country. Now the working newspapermen are all for Stevenson — but the publishers are not. IO31 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents This newspaper has an editorial that says it's time for a change — time for a change in Washington. But right in the very next column, the same newspaper has a story headed "Do you remember — 20 years ago — October 26th, 1932" — now I am quoting from the newspaper — it is just as interesting as it can be. It says: "The lowest price for wheat in the history of the Chicago Board of Trade was chalked up today when December delivery contracts sell down to 44 cents a bushel." They want to "change" back to that — this is what their editorial says. The Republicans would give you a change, all right. I don't know whether they would take you all the way back to 1932 on farm policy — but they would go part of the way back, anyway. The Republicans in Congress opposed most of the Democratic farm programs that brought to an end the chronic Republican farm depression of the i92o's. You might think that by now they would go along with our programs. But only this year the Republicans in the House of Representatives, by a majority vote, voted against price supports at 90 percent of parity. Senator Taft, who would control the Congress in a Republican administra- tion, said that if he had been in town he would have voted against it, too. The last time the Republicans had control of the Congress, you remember, in 1948, they enacted the sliding scale, which would let price supports go down as low as 60 per- cent of parity. Right now, if the Republican sliding scale was in effect, the support price for corn could be as low as $1.18 a bushel. Under our 90 percent program, it is now supported at $1.66 a bushel. You can hardly have a healthy, strong America without a prosperous agri- culture. And 60 percent of parity is not prosperity for the farmer. The Republican candidate has not said where he stands on price supports. He says he will figure something out before the pres- ent Democratic law expires. But you know that Senator Taft would dominate a Re- publican Congress — and you know exactly where he stands. You can't afford to take a chance on the Republican record — a Republican Con- gress— or the Republican candidate — to maintain either farm prosperity or industrial prosperity. You can't trust them on the matter of world peace, either. We have been building our military strength, and the strength of our allies, to meet the threat of Communist aggression. But the Republican isolationists have voted to cripple our efforts to prevent a third world war. If they had their way, very soon we would be left alone with no friends or allies. The Republican isolation- ists would tear down the work we have done for world peace, and risk plunging this country into a third world war. Think about these things when you go to the polls on Tuesday. Vote for the safety of this country. Vote for your own pros- perity. And vote for Sherwood Dixon for Governor. Vote for John Kinneman for Congress, and send Governor Stevenson to the White House and we will have 4 more years of prosperity. [4.] Decatur, Illinois (Rear platform, 1:02 p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this most cordial welcome. It is a great pleasure indeed to be back here in Decatur. I am on my way home today. This may be the last time I will be seeing you as President of the United States. For the past 7 years that I have been President, the world has been passing through a very, very critical period. Once again we face the worldwide threat of aggression. The policy of this country is to build the strength of the free world to meet that threat, and we are meeting the Communist challenge and hurling it back. In June 1950 the leaders of the Kremlin directed the aggression against Korea, in one IO32 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 1 [321] of the most brutal attacks in the history of the world. The free world stopped that aggression in Korea, and I am proud of what our soldiers have done there. Our soldiers are fighting in Korea so we won't have to fight in Denver or Detroit or Decatur. I resent the efforts of the Repub- lican candidates who try to say that our men in Korea are fighting a useless war. They are fighting to protect our safety and free- dom, and to prevent an atomic war. When the Republican candidate for Presi- dent was here in Decatur a few weeks ago, he promised to eliminate our losses in Korea, and he promised to avoid future Koreas. He said the battleline today should be manned primarily by South Koreans. Now, what do you suppose our fighting men over in Korea think of these speeches the General has been making? I will tell you. I have here an article from yesterday's New York Times, a paper that favors the Republican candidate. This article was written by a reporter at the fighting front out in Korea, and here is what it says: "In an informal sampling of American soldiers fighting in Korea, it was revealed that with surprising unanimity they dis- approved of any plan that would take United States troops off the frontline. . . . Officers and enlisted men alike — all of whom now are actively engaged in the fighting — feel any such withdrawal would be disastrous. . . . All of those who were questioned shared the view that United States divisions must remain on the front for the present. . . . 'We can't get out now — it wouldn't work,' said Sergeant James Shatto of Purdin, Mis- sissippi. ... 'It would just mean that we would be making another landing in Pusan within a few weeks,' said Corporal Harvey D. Jones of Crumpler, West Virginia. . . . He observed that since this was a United Nations war, the United States was obligated to share in the fighting and not remain in the rear and 'let the others do the dirty work.' " I want you to understand that these men did not mean any slur against the valor of our South Korean allies who are fighting side by side with them. This article goes on to say that all our men, and I quote — expressed "great admira- tion for the fighting capabilities of their Korean allies. . . . Nevertheless, all of the Americans questioned felt that the Koreans were not yet ready to assume full respon- sibility for holding the line against a tough and aggressive Chinese foe." Now these men are right. That is what makes the Republican candidate's statements about South Korean troops so ill-advised. He talks as though we were not already doing all we could to use South Koreans. Actually, there is now a South Korean army of 400,000 men, we have built up from scratch in just 2 years. We are increasing it just as fast as we can. But it takes a lot of time and training to make a good modern army. Just as these men say, the South Korean forces are not ready yet to take on the whole job alone. Now, the Republican candidate for Presi- dent ought to know this as well as I do. The generals who are guiding our effort in Korea are his old comrades in arms. He has available to him plenty of good informa- tion as to what goes on there. There is no excuse for him to be inaccurate about it. Now, there is one more thing in this New York Times story I wanted to read to you. It says, "A great majority of the soldiers could not understand what benefit could re- sult from a personal visit by General Eisen- hower to Korea if he were elected President." Now this is the article that was written at the front. I am still quoting from the article written for the New York Times — which is for Eisenhower. "Most of the interviewed were puzzled by, rather than opposed to the Eisenhower visit. They could not see what General Eisenhower would accomplish if he were to come here personally, and were worried that he might come, setde nothing, and leave with the United States prestige and bargaining IO33 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents positions considerably weakened by a fruit- less visit. . . . The officers interviewed, all of junior rank, also were outspoken in ascribing Eisenhower's proposal to political motives." They were right, too. I have read you this article so you would know what the men who are doing the fight- ing think of the statements on Korea, which the Republican candidate for President has been making so widely and loosely these days. I urge you to contrast the General's state- ments with what your own great Governor has been saying in his capacity as Democratic nominee for President. He has made no easy promises. He has held out no false hopes. He has been honest and direct and clear- minded about this whole problem. He has been as honest with you as he is honest with himself. My friends, the contrast between these two men on this vital issue is a good example of the difference in the way they have ap- proached all the great issues of this cam- paign. It is a good illustration of why the voters of this country should reject the profes- sional soldier in his bid for the highest civil- ian office in the land — and vote instead for an experienced and wise civilian leader, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. The only reason I have been going up and down the country laying out the facts and the issues to the people is because I want them to do a little thinking for themselves. I want them to think about the welfare of the free world — and that is ourselves and our allies. I want them to think about the welfare of this great country of ours, whose whole existence is at stake if something goes wrong. Then I want you to think about your own situation. Back here in Danville, I read a 20-year-ago column from a Danville paper — which hates me like the devil hates holy water — and it quoted accidentally alongside a column where it said you ought to have a change in Washington. It said that this day — October 26th, that was — on the Chi- cago market in 1932, wheat reached the all- time low of 44 cents a bushel. And what the paper was saying in the other column was, let's go back to that. They didn't like it very well, when I got through with what I was saying. And that is what I want you to think about. I want you to think about your own condition — how you were fixed — how you were fixed when these Republicans had control of the Government. , And how you are fixed now. Give those things thought, and remember that all we are working for is to maintain the prosperity of this great Nation, and to maintain peace in the world and keep the world from going into an atomic war which would destroy us all. Then you can go to the polls, and I know you will vote for what is right — you will vote for Dave Beggs of Decatur for Con- gress, you will elect Sherwood Dixon for Governor, and you will send Adlai Steven- son to the White House and we will have 4 years of good government. [5.] Taylor ville, Illinois (Rear plat- form, 1:47 p.m.) You know, I certainly appreciate that greeting. I know you have been doing some thinking. I am sure that you have been reading my speeches, and believing them — and that is what I want you to do. You know, this is the last day of my cam- paign tour. I have been about 18,500 miles, and I have made 206 appearances, and I believe we have done a little good for the Democratic Party. I have been traveling up and down the country for the last 6 weeks, doing every- thing in my power to make sure that the people understand the issues. Next Tuesday you will be making one of the most important decisions of your lives. You will be deciding whether or not this country is to continue on the road to pros- perity and lasting peace. The issues are just as clear and just as simple as that. For 20 years now the people of this coun- 1034 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [321] try have placed their faith in the Democratic Party, and we have not let them down. We have developed programs which have led this Nation to the greatest prosperity in its history. We have joined with the free coun- tries of the world in a stand against Com- munist aggression. Our leadership in this struggle is the last hope for world peace. Almost every single one of the gains we have made over the last 20 years has come about only after we have defeated the deter- mined opposition of the reactionary leaders in the Republican Party — the same reaction- ary wing of the Republican Old Guard which is in control of the Republican Party today. If these Republicans gain control of our Government, the programs which have meant so much to the workingman, the farmer, and the small businessman may be wrecked. Now I am particularly anxious that the farmers should consider their condition. You remember in 1948, 1 came up and down this part of the great State of Illinois and told the farmers just exacdy what was hap- pening to them as a result of the actions of the 80th Congress. The 81st Congress cured that action. But no longer ago than just recently, in this last Congress, the Re- publicans made a sincere effort to go back to what the 80th Congress had done to the people in the farm belt. Now, if they had succeeded in doing what they proposed to do, your support price for corn in this part of the world would have been $1.18 instead of $1.60. They say how much they love you — how much they want to do for you — but if you let them do it — as I said before — you ought to have your heads examined. Now, what we have tried to do, and what we have succeeded in doing, has been to balance the income of this country so the workingman got a fair share of it. He has been bargaining collectively with the biggest of the employers to get fair wages. The farmers have received fair prices for their crops, and the businessmen have all been prosperous. Our national income is at $277 billion — the output of the manufacturers, and the farmers' output is at $340 billion. Never was anything like it in the history of the world. But the Republicans — if they get control, they will fix you, all right. I was reading a paper back here in Dan- ville, Illinois. It had a 20-year-ago column in it next to an editorial which said how bad I am and there ought to be a change in Washington. But right along parallel was this 20-year-ago column which said on that day — which was October 26th, just 20 years ago — the lowest price on wheat had been reached on the Chicago Board of Trade at 44 cents. Now, if you want a change and want to go back to that, why that's your funeral. I am just warning you. Now, today we are fighting in Korea alongside of our allies so that we may never have to fight within our own borders in a third world war. But if the Republicans have their way, we may be left without a single strong ally in the struggle against Communist aggression. The American people do not have to take a chance on the Republican Old Guard. They can continue to place their faith in the Democratic Party, the party that has worked unceasingly in the interests of all the plain, everyday people. They can put their trust in the men of proven ability who head the Democratic ticket — John Sparkman and your Governor, Adlai Stevenson. All I ask you to do is look at the record. That is what I have been going up and down this country for, to get people to think — to look at the record. Study the votes of the Republicans and the Democrats in the Con- gress. Compare the qualifications of the candidates, and then vote for the welfare of this great Nation of ours — and for your own interests, in your own interests. And if you do just that, I have no doubt of the outcome. Peter Mack will continue his fine work for you in the Congress, Sher- wood Dixon will be your next Governor, and 1035 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents Sparkman and Stevenson will go to Wash- ington, and we will have 4 years of good government. [6.] Litchfield, Illinois (Rear platform, 2:32 p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this most cordial greeting. I understand this is the first time in the 99-year history of Litchfield that you have been visited by a President of the United States. I hope you won't be too badly disappointed. I am out campaigning for the man who is going to be the next President of the United States — your own good Governor, Adlai Stevenson. I am on my way home. This is my last day of whistlestop speaking in this cam- paign. I want to say, though, that I don't intend to fade away. I am going to keep right on fighting for the welfare of the common people. After Adlai Stevenson is elected President, I will do whatever I can to help him to carry on the great principles of the Democratic Party, of the New Deal and the Fair Deal. I have come to the conclusion that I have had every honor that the Democratic Party can give to a man. Therefore, I feel it is my duty to do everything I can to help the Democratic Party. That is the reason I am out campaigning for the election of Steven- son and Sparkman. Tonight I am going to make a speech in St. Louis, which will set forth the reasons why you should vote for the Democratic Party — the party which means prosperity and progress in the interests of the average man. I hope you will have a chance to tune in on my St. Louis speech. During the past 2 months I have traveled 18,000 miles, made over 200 speeches. I be- lieve that this is the most important election since the Civil War, because your future safety and the peace of the world are at stake in this election. Your own pocketbook and paychecks are at stake in this election. A vote for the Republican candidate is a IO36 vote for letting the Old Guard Republicans take over Congress. These men are political mossbacks. They have shown by their rec- ord in Congress that they do not believe in social security, in full employment, in fair farm price supports, and all the other Demo- cratic measures which have brought this country the greatest prosperity it has ever known. The Old Guard Republicans have shown by their record in Congress that they are isolationists. They do not believe in strengthening our allies against the Com- munist aggression. Time after time those isolationist Republicans have voted to crip- ple the Democratic Party programs — the programs to strengthen and unite the free world against the threat of Communist aggression. Don't vote to turn the clock back, my friends. Move forward with the party that believes in progress — and that is the Demo- cratic Party. The other day, someone sent me a copy of your local newspaper, the Litchfield News- Herald. As you know, 90 percent of the press is against Governor Stevenson, and the press is fighting him just like they fought Franklin Roosevelt, and just like they fought me all along. If they didn't fight me, I would know I was wrong. So it is very, very refreshing to see a news- paper like the one you have here in Litch- field. And I want to read you a few sen- tences from a fine front-page editorial in the Litchfield News-Herald, October 28. "Continued prosperity among the work- ingmen and the farmers — our readers — de- pends upon political philosophy more than one might realize. . . . The farm depression of the i92o's and early thirties was not a happenstance. It was the direct result of the political philosophy of the party then in power, and which seeks a return to power this year. . . . We in Litchfield have been fortunate in being able to measure the ad- ministrative abilities of Governor Stevenson over the past 3 years and 10 months. Notice- able achievements in State government have Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [321] been attained during his administra- tion. . . . Only once previously in our his- tory have the people of Illinois had the opportunity of sending a fellow citizen to the White House. At the time of his cam- paign, none considered him a leader of men nor a national hero like his opponent. . . . Yet humble Abraham Lincoln, the man with the deep-rooted convictions of the Prairie State, saved the Union and the Nation is still in debt to Illinois." Now that is what your good paper had to say about it — and it makes good sense. That editorial makes good sense. When you go to the polls next Tuesday, use your heads. Remember that your interests are at stake. Remember that the interests of this great Nation of ours are at stake — and the free world. The welfare of the free world will be at stake. When you go to vote, you your- selves are responsible for the kind of gov- ernment we have. That is the reason I have been going up and down the country trying to get the people to think. If they will just think — think of the welfare of the country, and think of their own welfare, you can't do anything else but send Carl Johnston to Congress, elect Sher- wood Dixon for Governor, and send your great Governor, Adlai Stevenson, to the White House, and the country will be safe for another 4 years. [7.] Granite City, Illinois (Rear plat- form, 3:40p.m.) I certainly do appreciate this wonderful reception here in Granite City. I know I am among real friends in Granite City. You came through for me in fine style in 1948, and I want to tell you I needed it then. I know you are going to do even better this time for the man who is heading the Demo- cratic ticket this year — your own great Gov- ernor, Adlai Stevenson. This is a very special occasion for me. This is the last whistlestop speech I shall make from this campaign train. It is the last time when as President of the United States I shall talk to the people in "whisde- stop" crowds like this about the issues in the election. I kind of hate to give it up. Let me tell you something else. I don't want the Republicans to get their hopes up too high. This is far from the last time that I shall be campaigning for the Democratic ticket and the Democratic Party. My party has given me every honor it can bestow upon a man, and I am not the kind of person who gets everything he can out of a party and then goes over to the other side, like some of them do. You know, I have known people who have had every honor that the Demo- cratic Party can give them, and then when the Democratic Party needs them they will go out with the rich boys and see if they can't help themselves on the other side and let the Democratic Party go "flooey." I don't like it— I don't like it. So long as I have the strength to do it, I shall go on fighting for the Democratic Party and the things it believes in and stands for. You know, I started these whistlestop trips over 4 years ago for one main reason. I knew that if I could only get the facts to the people, they would do the right thing in their own interest. That is just what hap- pened in 1948. The people got the facts, and they voted for the Democratic Party — the party that has always worked in the interests of all the people. My experience in 1948 proved something I have always known in my 40 years of politics. If the people get the truth, they can be trusted to look out for their own welfare, and the welfare of their great coun- try. That is the basic principle I have fol- lowed in my 7 years as President of the United States. And my faith in this principle has been mighty important to me in the difficult years that I have spent in the White House. The Democratic Party has always relied upon the good sense of the American people. It is willing to place the record of its accomplish- ments before the people and let them use their judgment. 1037 [321] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents That is just what the Democratic candi- dates have been doing in this campaign. They have gone across the country talking sense to the people, and telling them about the record of the Democratic Party — and they are telling it by chapter and verse, and by the record. But, my friends, the Republican candi- dates do not dare campaign on the record of their party, because it is just plain bad. On the domestic side, the Democratic Party can point to a record of accomplish- ments which have brought the country the greatest prosperity in history. We have de- veloped sound programs for the workers, for the farmers, for the small businessman, and as they have prospered, the entire coun- try has prospered, and everyone has had a hand in that prosperity and a part of it. The Republican record shows a long line of stubborn opposition to the measures of the New Deal and the Fair Deal — the programs that have brought such great returns to the American people. In the international field, this country un- der Democratic leadership has mobilized the free nations of the world in a determined stand against Communist aggression. The hope of all civilization rests upon the out- come of our efforts. But the Republican record shows they have tried time and again to kill or cripple the programs that have meant life or death for our allies in this great struggle. And my friends, the Republican campaign this year is being run by the same reactionary Old Guard which has built up this long record of opposition to everything that is good for the people of this great country of ours. It would be bad enough if these reac- tionaries were given a chance to wreck the programs that have brought prosperity to our country; but it will be an even greater tragedy if these same reactionaries were put into a position where they could ruin our efforts for world peace. We can work for peace only if the free nations of the world continue their opposition to Soviet expansion. That means building up our own strength and the 1038 strength of our allies. And it means con- tinuing our efforts to oppose aggression, as we are doing in Korea, without getting in- volved in a third world war. But the Republicans just don't understand those policies. If they had their way, we would not have a single strong ally in the world today. And I say that with convic- tion, and I know what I am talking about, for I have been sitting where I could find out the truth. That is why I consider this election one of the most important elections in history. Next Tuesday the voters will be deciding whether or not this country is to continue on the road to lasting prosperity and world peace. Bear that in mind, now. That is what I want you to think about. For 6 weeks I have been traveling up and down this country, doing all in my power to make the people understand what is at stake. I want them to do a little thinking on their own account. I want you to use your heads. And if you do that, you will be safe. I have been urging them — just as I urge you now — to look at the record and find out which party has been working in the inter- ests of all the plain, everyday people. Study the votes of the Republicans and the Demo- crats in the Congress. Compare the quali- fications of each candidate for the greatest position in the history of the world. The Presidency is the most powerful and the greatest job that ever has happened in the history of this world. And this country is responsible for the welfare of the free world. And we must have somebody in that Office who knows what it is all about. If you do just that, if you will do what I am telling you — do a little thinking, study the record, study a little history — the Demo- cratic Party will win a great victory next Tuesday. Mel Price will continue to give you real representation in the Congress. Sherwood Dixon will take over the Governor's chair in Springfield. And the country will have 4 years of good government under Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 1 [322] note: In the course of his remarks on November i the President referred to, among others, Governor Henry F. Schricker, Democratic candidate for Sena- tor, Jack H. Mankin, Democratic candidate for Rep- resentative, John A. Watkins, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of Indiana, Sfc. James Shatto of Purdin, Miss., Cpl. Harvey D. Jones of Crumpler, W. Va., Sherwood Dixon, Democratic candidate for Governor, John A. Kinneman, David W. Beggs, and W. Carl Johnston, Democratic candidates for Rep- resentative, and Representatives Peter F. Mack, Jr., and Melvin Price, all of Illinois. 322 Address at the Kiel Auditorium in St. Louis. November 1, 1952 I CERTAINLY do appreciate this most cordial welcome — in Kansas City or St. Louis, my second home city, let us say. You know, I have been receiving some wonderful letters from all over the country since this tour of mine started on the 27th day of September. There have been something over 10,000 of them. And they run — believe it or not — nearly five to one in favor of what I have been trying to do. I am exceedingly sorry that the mayor can't be here tonight, but his doctor has him under control. For once he is obeying the doctor's orders. He said he was going to listen, and he will probably get a better idea of what I am saying. I finished my 1948 campaign here in St. Louis, and you gave me an ovation like this — and we won. Now I have come to the end of the campaign — 18,500 miles — and this is number 211 speech. We are going to win again this time. We are going to win for Adlai Stevenson. We are going to win with Adlai Stevenson and John Sparkman. We are going to send Stu Symington to the Senate, from the great State of Missouri, and we are going to elect Phil Donnelly Governor, and we are going to elect the whole Democratic ticket. We are going to win for the policies that have made our country prosperous — the policies that have given every man better opportunities, and saved the free world from communism. We are not going to let the Republican Old Guard hide behind the glamor of a five- star general, and take the Government away from the people. We are not going to let the special inter- ests and the snollygosters take over this coun- try to run it for their private profit. Don't let anybody tell you a different story. I have been campaigning back and forth across the country for a Democratic victory. I have talked to the voters, and they have been talking to me. And I do not believe they are going to turn the clock back. The people of this country know the difference between the Democratic Party and the Re- publican Party — and the Republicans can't fool them. They know that the Democratic Party runs the Government for the interests of the average man — and that means pros- perity. They know that the Republican Party would run the country for the interests of the bankers, the profiteers, and the special privilege boys. That has one final result — sooner or later it means depression, falling farm prices, and unemployment. This year I am not asking for votes for myself. Long ago, shortly after I was inau- gurated in 1949, 1 decided that I ought not to run for office. The Presidency is the most responsible and one of the most difficult jobs in the world. It is the greatest office in the history of the world. And I speak advisedly when I say that. I have given my country the best that is in me. I have made mistakes. I have made mistakes, of course, and who has not? — but I am proud of the things I have tried to do. I am proud of what my ad- ministration has accomplished for the people of this great country. I was strongly urged to run again. But there were many unfinished things that I wanted to help carry through to completion. I would have liked to continue my part 1039 [322] Nov. Public Papers of the Presidents in the struggle of the free nations for peace in the world. We have made great strides in bringing the free nations of the world together in a common enterprise, to preserve the great values of our civilization. I believe our efforts to build the defenses of the free nations, and to strengthen their economic life and social order are showing real results. I think the scales of power are beginning to shift in our favor, in this struggle with com- munism. I believe sincerely that the world will emerge from the shadow of aggression and fear, into the bright sunlight of lasting peace. I really believe we are facing the greatest age in history. How I wish I could be 18 instead of 68! The next half century will see undreamed of marvels for humanity I would have liked to see through to final victory. But I knew there were many men in my party who are well qualified to lead this Nation. So I decided not to run again. The Democratic Party chose as its presi- dential candidate one of the ablest and most distinguished public servants in our national life, the Governor of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson. He has put on a campaign that has made all of us proud and made us certain that we nominated the right man to be President of the United States. Now the Republicans this year have put on a strange and fearful campaign. In 1948 they campaigned on the basis of the public opinion polls. Their strategy was, "We can't lose, so why make anybody mad." So they didn't say anything except "unity." This year, they were desperate. So they adopted a new type of campaign that is run like an advertising campaign to sell a brand of soap. This Republican brand of soap hadn't sold for 20 years, so they made a new wrapper for their old product — a wrapper with five silver stars on it. They had new slogans, they hired cheerleaders, they had confetti distributed in advance, they gave the kids balloons, they bought spot commercials, such as this: "Switch to our brand of soap." They said, "It will solve inflation, deflation, civil rights, depressions — and that inferiority feeling of being a Republican out of office. One application will wash away all your troubles." But, my friends, it's the same old GOP soap. It isn't good for anything, and it never was — and the people are not going to be fooled into buying it again. Of course, the Democrats don't care what campaign techniques the Republicans use. The Democrats are going to win, because we have based our campaign on the issues — the real bedrock issues: how to keep our coun- try prosperous, how to provide better in- come, better homes, more opportunity, more security — how to hold back communism, how to achieve world peace. The Repub- licans don't want to fight on these issues that really concern the people. They know they have a bad record on these issues — and they know the voters know it, too. So they al- ways want to talk about something else. They start out by running against "regi- mentation" and by crying "socialism." They go on a fresh crusade to rescue the American people from the terrible condition of slavery they say we are in. And when it turns out that the voters don't want to be rescued, and that they prefer to be, as the Republican candidate for President said, "mired in the mud of New Deal prosperity" — why then the Republican tune always changes to "me too." Then, they say they've been for the New Deal and the Fair Deal all along. But how do they vote in Congress ? Of course, they're for social security, they say. They even want to improve it. But how do they vote in Con- gress? Why they vote against the whole idea every time they get a chance. Of course, they're for labor unions, so they say, just before election. Of course, they're for farm price supports now. Why they'd like to see the farmers get 100 percent parity now, just before election. IO40 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [322] And their candidates were indignant when their voting record was exposed. How could anybody think they are not for all these things now? They beat their breasts, they weep crocodile tears, they give their personal pledges two or three times a day, to keep the New Deal and the Fair Deal and make them better — just before election. Now listen to this. You remember Eugene Field? He said: "Most all the time, the whole year round, there ain't no flies on me, But jest 'fore Christmas I'm as good as I kin be! So wash yer face and brush yer hair, And mind your P's and Q's." Jest 'fore election I'm Fair Deal as sure as sure can be. And when they's company, don't pass yer plate for pie again. Jest 'fore Christmas I'm as good as I kin be. I'm a-thinking of the things I'd like to see upon the tree. Just 'fore election I'm fer the people as strong as strong can be. That's the way they sing, all the time. Well, I am sure I don't know how anybody ever got the idea that the Republicans were against the New Deal and the Fair Deal un- less it was by listening to their speeches in Congress, and reading their votes in Con- gress. And I don't know what they're so mad with us about. We didn't put all those skeletons in their closet. We didn't make them vote against improving social security, we didn't make them vote for the Taft- Hartley law, we didn't make them vote against rent and price control, we didn't make them vote against stable farm price supports. That was all their own idea — it wasn't ours. I don't know why the Republican candi- date for President gets so excited when we tell the truth about these things. I hope he is in favor of social security. That would be a grand conversion in his views since 1948, when he said security could be had easily by going to jail. Now he shakes my confidence when he turns right around and says he is just the same now as he was in 1948, and has not changed one bit. I wish he would stop being so indignant, and tell us calmly what his views really are, and when and why he changed them, if he ever did. Then there is this hue and cry about his wanting to cut the soldiers' pay. He has been going around the country accusing the Democrats of saying that he wants to cut soldiers' pay. For a long time this puzzled me. I never said he wanted to cut the sol- diers' pay. I never heard that he had any such idea. But recently I found out the rea- son for his excitement. Back in 1948 he testified before a committee of Congress that he thought draftees should not receive any pay except cigarette money. Now that, my friends, was his own idea; it wasn't mine. I don't think anyone would have guessed it if he hadn't kept bringing it up. But he doesn't have to get so indignant about it. All he has to do is to say his views on the subject have changed, since he became the candidate for President. It really is wonderful how a Republican's views will change and broaden temporarily under those circumstances. Now another element in this strange and wonderful campaign is the press of the coun- try. Most of the daily newspapers in this country are Republican. Only about 10 per- cent of the circulation is Democratic. Governor Stevenson has called this the one-party press. The two-party system is all right for the common people, but not, ap- parently, for the publishers of newspapers. They don't see any threat to our political sys- tem in having almost all the newspapers on one side. But this campaign has brought out another fact about the press. The publishers may be mostly Republican, but the working news- papermen— like most working people throughout the country — are for Stevenson. That is true of the newspapermen on my train. That is true of the newspapermen on IO41 [322] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents the Stevenson train, and it's true especially on the train o£ the Republican candidate for President. Now I want to say a word to these news- papermen, especially the ones who have been going around the country with me. Boys, when I take out after the one-party press, that doesn't include you. It only includes your publishers — and you and I can agree that they are not too bright, anyway. You fel- lows are all right in my book. And I mean it. There are a few publishers I want to com- pliment, too. There is one in this town. The St. Louis Post Dispatch and I have at last managed to agree on one thing — and that is the election of Adlai Stevenson. You don't know how much satisfaction it gives me to have converted that paper to do right just once. Then there is another element in the Re- publican campaign, and that is really a shocking and terrifying thing. Americans have no more precious posses- sion than the Bill of Rights. Those few paragraphs in the Constitution of the United States were the product of centuries of strug- gle by mankind against tyranny. They are a code of conduct for men in public life every- where to assure that, no matter what hap- pens, America will remain a land of freedom, of liberty, and of justice. But, my friends, eternal vigilance is still the price of liberty. There is no assurance that the ideals embodied in our Bill of Rights will survive, if there is a determined effort by men in positions of leadership to snuff them out. A powerful group of men in the Repub- lican Party is now determined to rise to power through a method of conduct as hostile to American ideals as anything we have ever seen. This method has come to be known as McCarthyism. This method tries people by accusation and slander instead of evidence and proof. It destroys reputations by repeated utterance of gigantic falsehoods. It spares neither the lowly Government clerk nor men of the towering stature of Gen. George Catlett Marshall. This new method of American politics has already been used with a terrifying degree of success. It defeated the distin- guished Senators Tydings, of Maryland, and Thomas, of Utah, in 1950, and helped to defeat several others. Now, for the first time, it is being used in a presidential election. The Republican candidate for Vice President has made it his stock in trade in this campaign. Senator McCarthy himself was the featured speaker at the Republican convention, and was pro- vided a national radio and television hookup in this campaign, to see if he could do to Governor Stevenson what was done to Senators Tydings and Thomas. I would have expected the Republican candidate for President to be against this kind of thing. I would have expected him to defend the name of his old friend and benefactor, George Marshall, against those detractors. But he did not do it. Instead, he just uttered a few generalities about the American tradition of justice. And he went on to say that Senators McCarthy and Jen- ner were on his team and should be reelected. And he himself has been using the same kind of innuendo, and distortion in his own speeches. My friends, we must get rid of McCarthy- ism. The Bill of Rights, in my opinion, is the most important part of the Constitution of the United States. We must save it, and in order to save it, McCarthyism must be wiped off the map. In order to do that, we must defeat the presidential candidate who has em- braced its authors, tolerated it, and sought to benefit by it. The Republican candidate has also em- braced the isolationist leaders of the Repub- lican Party. And together they have made our foreign policy an issue in this campaign. Of course, all the Republicans you talk to will tell you that isolationism is dead. No Republican candidate, nowadays, will IO42 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 1 [322] get up and make a speech telling us that we ought to withdraw behind the oceans and ignore the rest of the world. But the Old Guard Republicans will vote against military aid for free nations who are friends of ours. They will vote against for- eign economic aid — which is just as impor- tant as military aid. They will vote against point 4 — which costs us very little but is one of the strongest weapons against Communist subversion. They will vote slashes in our national de- fense budget. They will vote against the reciprocal trade laws. All the time, they go on loudly proclaiming that isolationism is dead. Now the Republican candidate for Presi- dent, when he is in the States of these Old Guardsmen, talks as they do. When he goes into the States of Republicans of the inter- nationalist persuasion, he talks just the other way. It's hard to tell where he stands. It's hard to tell where he stands on any- thing. He's a Dixiecrat in South Carolina. He's a Shivercrat in Texas. He's an isola- tionist in Illinois. And he's an internation- alist in Michigan when he goes into the State where Senator Vandenberg used to live. But no matter what his personal convic- tions are, if the Republicans win this elec- tion, these Old Guard isolationist leaders will hold the key positions in Congress. A vote for the Republicans is a vote for a Taft-controlled Congress. That would mean such a hacking and chopping at our own defenses and the defenses of the free world as we have never seen before. Our country would be weakened. Communism would feed and grow fat on what the isolationists would whack out of our budget. We would have the ultimate irony of a general who stood for the defense of the free world, when he was in uniform, presid- ing over the liquidation of our foreign policy. That's awful ! Indeed, his campaign tactics have already begun to undermine our unity in the strug- gle against communism, even before the election. Knowing very well that the Communist aggression was an unprovoked and deliberate crime, he has nevertheless tried to create the impression that it was somehow the fault of the American Government. Knowing very well that success in this struggle in Korea is essential to the whole effort of the free world against communism, he has talked about it as if it were a distant conflict which was no real concern of ours. Knowing that we cannot withdraw our troops without the collapse of the front and giving up all we have fought for, he raises false hopes that he can bring our soldiers home promptly, and without appeasement. Knowing very well that tremendous strides have been made in creating a tough South Korean army of 400,000 men, yet he suggests that his old friends and colleagues in the armed services have been delinquent in this task, and careless of the lives of American soldiers. I am happy to report to you tonight that this loose and pernicious talk has not weak- ened the morale of our soldiers in Korea one bit. They know what this fight is about, even if the Republican candidate doesn't. They know how important it is to see it through to a victorious solution. One of our great newspapers — which is supporting the General in this campaign, recendy asked our soldiers in Korea what they thought of his plan for their withdrawal. Did they think that they should be held in reserve while the newly trained Koreans did all the fighting? They did not. They ex- press admiration for their Korean allies, but they know the Koreans cannot yet hold the line alone. Listen to what Sergeant First Class James Shatto of Purdin, Mississippi, said about that, and I quote the Sergeant: "We can't get out now — it wouldn't work. It cost us thou- sands of casualties to take Old Baldy. Damned if we want to see them get it back for nothing." There speaks a fighting soldier. And Corporal Harvey D. Jones, of Crum- pler, West Virginia, said this is a United 1043 [322] Nov. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents Nations war, and that the United States is obligated to share in the fighting and not remain in the rear and let others do the dirty job. Our younger officers over there, when they were interviewed, had one short word to describe the Republican candidate's proposal. That word was "Politics." There you have the voice of our brave young men, who know they are fighting not only in the cause of their country, but in the cause of mankind as a whole. There you have the spirit that makes a real living thing out of the United Nations, and spells the inevitable downfall of communism. We should listen to these voices tonight. There is in them the wisdom of courage, and the hope of a new day for the world. These men, these young officers, these ser- geants and corporals and privates, know why they are fighting in Korea. They know what the stakes are there, even if our Repub- lican candidates do not. My friends, I tell you that the conduct of the Republican candidate for President in this campaign has been a sore disappoint- ment to me. I knew him; I trusted him. At one time, I thought he was qualified to be President. I thought I knew what he stood for. But since he has gone into politics, he does not seem to be the same man. I am saddened very much by this. I never thought I would have to defend the foreign policy of this country, and the morale of our armed services, against the attacks of this man. Former commander in chief of the Allied Forces in World War II, former Chief of Staff — I appointed him. Former com- mander and organizer of the free world's forces against Communist aggression — and I appointed him to that, too. Now, as he campaigns in New York, the General says he has not changed. But if he hasn't changed, he displays a side of his character I didn't know existed. I cannot but conclude that it would be disastrous for us to elect as President a man who shows so great a willingness to do the purely expedient thing, in matters that vitally concern our national survival. We cannot expect him, now, to control and reshape his party to serve our national welfare. He has surrendered his moral authority over that party. Fortunately, my friends, we do not have to elect him. We can elect the Democratic candidate for President — Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Governor Stevenson has a real understand- ing of what has made this country great, and he has the qualities of leadership that will mean to us an even greater future. He has really shown his courage and dedi- cation to duty by leaving his campaign in its closing phase and going back to straighten out a serious and dangerous prison revolt in his own State. He went back. He killed the revolt, without the loss of a life. It was a courageous thing to do. If he had failed, you would have read a lot about it in the hostile press, you can be sure of that. It was the sort of forthright, honest action that you can expect from Adlai Stevenson when he becomes President of the United States. I know that you, as voters, want to defeat communism and prevent another world war. You want to continue the domestic policies that will assure prosperity. You want methods of conduct in public life that will preserve and develop the ideals of democracy and civil liberty. For all these reasons, we must elect Adlai Stevenson President of the United States November the 4th. note: The President spoke at 9:02 p.m. in the Kiel Auditorium, St. Louis, Mo. During his remarks he referred to Mayor Joseph M. Darst of St. Louis, Stuart Symington, Democratic candidate for Senator, and Phil M. Donnelly, Democratic candidate for Governor, all of Missouri, General of the Army George C. Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army, 1939-45, Millard E. Tydings, former Representative and Senator from Maryland, Elbert D. Thomas, former Senator from Utah, Senators Joseph R. Mc- Carthy of Wisconsin and William E. Jenner of Indiana, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Senator from Michigan, 1928-51, Sfc. James Shatto of Purdin, Miss., and Cpl. Harvey D. Jones of Crumpler, W. Va. The address was broadcast. 1044 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. [323] 323 Further Statement by the President on the Decision To Withdraw U.S. Forces From Korea, 1 947-1949. November 2, 1952 IN RECENT DAYS, the position taken by the various departments of this Government in 1947, 1948, and 1949 with respect to the withdrawal of United States troops from Korea has been made the subject of partisan political debate. Many untrue accusations are being made with reference to the decision of this Government to withdraw our troops from Korea. In order that the public may have access to the facts, I have determined that a memorandum from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of State, dated Sep- tember 26, 1947, and its enclosure, which have heretofore been classified as top secret, should be declassified. Copies of these docu- ments accordingly are attached to this statement. The significance of this memorandum of September 26, 1947, and its importance to the subsequent developments of our policy concerning Korea have been made clear in my statement of October 27, 1952. Follow- ing the military appraisal expressed in this memorandum, this Government proposed to the United Nations in 1947 that elections be held in Korea looking toward the establish- ment of a united Korea and the withdrawal of all occupation forces. A resolution to this effect was adopted at the General Assembly of the United Nations, November 14, 1947. This memorandum of September 26, 1947, was relied upon in the formulation of United States policy with respect to Korea in the National Security Council both in 1948 and in 1949, when the entire situation was re- viewed in the light of then existing condi- tions, and the decision to complete the withdrawal of United States troops was con- firmed. At that time, as I pointed out in my statement of October 27th, the advice of our military establishment was that, in spite of the obvious risks, the withdrawal of United States troops was justified. I would not have released this document nor brought these facts before the public if the Republican candidate for President, who was Chief of Staff of the Army and a mem- ber of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1947, had not in his campaign misrepresented the con- tents of this memorandum and made intem- perate and unjustified attacks upon the civil- ian agencies participating in our decisions with respect to Korea. Beginning in his speech of September 22d in Cincinnati, and on various occasions thereafter, culminating in his speech in Detroit on October 24th, the Republican candidate sought to create the false impression that our civilian officials were solely responsible for our decisions with respect to Korea and that they were guilty of blundering, if not of something worse. As I pointed out in my remarks in Cincinnati on October 31st, our decisions with respect to Korea, like many other decisions in our struggle for peace, involved both military and diplomatic factors and were reached through the honest cooperation of both military and civilian officials. False and malicious attacks upon the loyalty and judgment of either the military or civilian officials who were in- volved in these crucial decisions are inexcusable and are extremely damaging to the proper conduct of the Government. As President, I feel it my duty to protect the men who are engaged in this crucial work from such attacks. In releasing these documents, I wish it understood that there is no intention to criticize the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the work of the military estab- lishment in these critical matters. Indeed, I believe that releasing these documents will indicate the justification for their views. I hope that the release of these documents will set this controversy at rest, and will in some measure protect those who have not been able to protect themselves in this debate because of their official positions, and because of the secrecy classification which must necessarily cover a great deal of their work. 55-672- -69 IO45 [323] Nov. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents note: The text of the memorandum and its en- closure, released with the President's statement, follows: Memorandum for the Secretary of State: Subject: The interest of the United States in mili- tary occupation of South Korea from the point of view of the military security of the United States. Pursuant to the request in SWN-5694 (copy at- tached), initiated by the State Member of the Com- mittee, the following views have been received: The Joint Chiefs of Staff consider that, from the standpoint of military security, the United States has little strategic interest in maintaining the present troops and bases in Korea for the reasons hereafter stated. In the event of hostilities in the Far East, our present forces in Korea would be a military liability and could not be maintained there without substan- tial reinforcement prior to the initiation of hostilities. Moreover, any offensive operation the United States might wish to conduct on the Asiatic continent most probably would by-pass the Korean peninsula. If, on the other hand, an enemy were able to establish and maintain strong air and naval bases in the Korean peninsula, he might be able to inter- fere with United States communications and opera- tions in East China, Manchuria, the Yellow Sea, Sea of Japan and adjacent islands. Such interference would require an enemy to maintain substantial air and naval forces in an area where they would be subject to neutralization by air action. Neutraliza- tion by air action would be more feasible and less costly than large scale ground operations. In light of the present severe shortage of military manpower, the corps of two divisions, totaling some 45,000 men now maintained in South Korea, could well be used elsewhere, the withdrawal of these forces from Korea would not impair the military position of the Far East Command unless in conse- quence, the Soviets establish military strength in South Korea capable of mounting an assault in Japan. At the present time, the occupation of Korea is requiring very large expenditures for the primary purpose of preventing disease and disorder which might endanger our occupation forces with little, if any, lasting benefit to the security of the United States. Authoritative reports from Korea indicate that continued lack of progress toward a free and in- dependent Korea, unless offset by an elaborate pro- gram of economic, political and cultural rehabilita- tion, in all probability will result in such conditions, including violent disorder, as to make the position of United States occupation forces untenable. A precipitate withdrawal of our forces under such circumstances would lower the military prestige of the United States, quite possibly to the extent of ad- versely affecting cooperation in other areas more vital to the security of the United States. James Forrestal ENCLOSURE Memorandum by the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on U.S. Policy in Korea: SWN-5694 15 September 1947 The following has been received from the State Member, State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee: "In view of the continuing stalemate in the Joint Commission in Korea and in view of the recent Soviet refusal to participate in Four Power Con- sultations in Washington on proposals for the early achievement of the aims of the Moscow Agreement, the State Department is currently considering what further steps should be taken to implement U.S. Policy in Korea. In order that such consideration may include the basic elements, the State Department requests, as a matter of urgency, the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarding the interest of the U.S. in military occupation of South Korea from the point of view of the military security of the United States." It is requested that the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the above be obtained as a matter of urgency and forwarded to the Secretary, State-War- Navy Coordinating Committee. See also Items 295 [8], 310. 324 Radio and Television Remarks on Election Eve. November 3, 1952 [Broadcast from Kansas City, Mo., at 9:35 p.m.] I WANT to thank the Vice President not only for what he has said tonight, but also for all that he has done for me and for his country. He has been a great Vice Presi- dent. He has been an unfailing source of strength and wisdom as we have worked IO46 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 3 [324] together to serve the American people. We have tried, to the best of our ability, to per- form the duties of the great offices which the people have entrusted to us. The time has come now for you to choose our successors and to elect a Congress to serve with them. This is a most important election. This election may decide whether we shall go ahead and expand our prosperity here at home or slide back into a depression. It may decide whether we shall preserve and extend our civil rights and liberties, or see them fall before a wave of smear and fear. Above all, it may decide whether we shall finally achieve lasting peace or be led into a third world war. For 6 weeks now, I have been traveling through this country, explaining these crucial issues to the voters at every whistlestop. I have done this, not for myself, but for your welfare. As you all know, I am not a candi- date for any public office. My purpose in this campaign has been to help make sure that when you go to the polls you have the facts about what is at stake for you, and for your families and your children. I have always believed that the American people have the good sense and good judg- ment to make the right decisions, once they know the facts. On the basis of the facts and the record, the people should choose the Democratic Party in this election. We have brought this country the great- est prosperity and the highest standard of living in history. We have made great progress in living up to our ideals of human rights for all our citizens. We have worked unceasingly to make life better for the aver- age man. In the past 2 years, we have faced the dan- ger of Communist imperialism and a third world war. We have not retreated in the face of this threat. Neither have we lost our heads and plunged the world into an all-out atomic war. Instead we have acted firmly to meet the danger. We have rallied our allies, built our defenses, turned back aggression, and called into being the united power of the free nations to overcome the conspiracy of godless communism. Our efforts have given all men hope for peace and freedom. This is one of our greatest achievements as a Nation. Our opponents in this election campaign have done everything they could to make votes out of the burdens we have borne so well and honorably in this cause of peace. Through a hostile press and continuous propaganda, they have tried to spread con- fusion and discontent. They have even been playing politics with the sacrifices our men are making on the battleline to protect our freedom and achieve peace. But I am sure that we will not be misled by this campaign of fear and deception. I do not think we will be turned aside by false propaganda from our firm advance toward peace. I believe that God intended for this Nation to lead the way to peace for all men, and that we are going ahead to lead it to peace obedient to His will. In a few moments you will hear the new leaders of the Democratic Party. I sincerely believe that these are the men — and the only men — who can lead us to victory in the cause of peace. You can trust these men, because they are men of courage and integrity. You can trust them because they know our problems — be- cause they are experienced in civilian govern- ment. You can trust them because they stand for the great programs of the Demo- cratic Party — the programs that have made us a strong and healthy Nation, the programs that are turning the tide of the world against Communist aggression. My friends, I have the honor to present to you the Democratic candidate for Vice President, John Sparkman of Alabama, and the Democratic candidate for President, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. note: The President spoke on a special half -hour program which was broadcast nationwide by radio and television. Other speakers on the program were 1047 [324] Nov. 3 Public Papers of the Presidents Vice President Alben W. Barkley, who spoke from St. Louis, Mo., and Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, Democratic candidate for President, and Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, Democratic candidate for Vice President, both of whom spoke from Chicago, 111. 325 Statement by the President on the Election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States. November 5, 1952 THE PEOPLE of the United States have elected Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower as their President. In our democracy, this is the way we decide who shall govern us. I ac- cept the decision as representing the will of the people, and I shall give my support to the Government they have selected. I ask all my fellow citizens to do the same. The new administration and the new Con- gress will face extremely difficult problems, particularly in the field of foreign affairs. The proper solution of those problems may determine whether we shall have a third world war — and, indeed, whether we shall survive as a free and democratic Nation. Moreover, there is no quick and easy solu- tion to these problems. They will require sacrifice and hard work on our part for years to come. We must support our Gov- ernment in the measures that are necessary to protect our freedom and achieve peace in the world, even though the way be long and hard. I stand ready to do all that lies within my power to facilitate the orderly transfer of the business of the executive branch of the Gov- ernment to the new administration. I have already sent a message to General Eisen- hower suggesting that he have a representa- tive meet with the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, so that he will be fully informed as to the items in the budget. It will be necessary for me to send the budget to the Congress since, under the law, it must be transmitted by January 18th. Steps will be taken to cooperate with respect to other matters relating to the transition to a new administration where General Eisenhower wishes that to be done. I am inviting the General to meet with me here in the White House at an early date to discuss these prob- lems, in order that it may be plain to the whole world that our people are united in the struggle for freedom and peace. I could not conclude this statement without expressing my admiration and gratitude to Governor Stevenson for the campaign which he conducted. He lived up to the finest traditions of our democracy. It is plain that, in him, we have a great new leader who will contribute much to our national life in the years ahead. We shall have other elections in the future. There we can again present our views and our differences for the decision of the Ameri- can people. In the meantime, it will be in the best interest of all of us to close ranks and work together for our mutual welfare as citizens of this great Republic. 326 Telegram to the President-Elect. November 5, 1952 General Dwight D. Eisenhower: Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply to my telegram. I know you will agree with me that there ought to be an orderly transfer of the business of the Executive branch of the Government to the new Ad- ministration, particularly in view of the international dangers and problems that con- IO48 Harry S. Truman, igp Nov. 12 [328] front this country and the whole free world. I invite you, therefore, to meet with me here in the White House at your early conven- ience to discuss the problems of this transi- tion period, so that it may be made clear to all the world that this Nation is united in its struggle for freedom and peace. Harry S. Truman note: See also Item 331. 327 Statement by the President on the Death of Representative Adolph J. Sabath of Illinois. November 6, 1952 IN THE DEATH of Adolph J. Sabath the country has lost a public servant of rare distinction. Adolph Sabath served in the Congress longer than any other Member in its entire history. Mr. Sabath became a Member of Congress on March 4, 1907, and served without interruption from that day until his death. He was chosen by the people of his congressional district to represent them in a total of twenty-four elections. He served under eight Presidents of the United States and ten Speakers of the House. Judge Sabath, as he was known to his friends, exemplified in his life the virtues that make America strong. During all of his years of service, Adolph Sabath never forgot his own humble origin. In him the forgotten man always found a champion. He was the sponsor of much progressive legislation and was an unyielding opponent of special interests. He served well both his constituents and his country and he was greatly beloved by all who knew him. 328 Letter Directing the Air Coordinating Committee To Make Plans for Observing the 50th Anniversary of the Wright Brothers Flight. November 12, 1952 Dear Mr. Davis: The world's first powered flight in a craft heavier than air was made by the Wright Brothers on December 17, 1903 at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. The importance of aviation to our nation and to the world makes it particularly fitting that the Fiftieth Anniversary of this epochal event be observed in an appropriate manner. Accordingly, I direct the Air Coordinating Committee to develop and coordinate plans for the par- ticipation of the government in the observ- ance of this anniversary. The rapid progress and growth of aviation has resulted as a combination of the efforts of government and industry; its impact on our economic, social, and cultural life has been profound. In the formulation of your plans, it is therefore appropriate that the Committee coordinate them with representa- tives of the aviation industry and other in- terested groups. It is well known that the wartime poten- tial of aviation is great, but the power of aviation for peace is infinitely greater, and it is the peacetime progress of aviation which most truly typifies the spirit of this republic. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable Thomas W. S. Davis, Acting Chair- man, Air Coordinating Committee, Washington 25, D.C.] note: The Air Coordinating Committee was estab- lished by Executive Order 9781, dated September 19, 1946 (3 CFR, 1943-48 Comp., p. 568). IO49 [329] Nov. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents 329 Remarks to the Directors of the National Newspaper Publishers Association. November 14, 1952 THANK YOU— thank you very much. I hope I will always deserve it. I was in dead earnest in the effort to implement the report of the Commission on Civil Rights. I shall continue to work for it as long as I live, for it is part and parcel of the principles for which I have always stood, and for which I will always stand as long as I live. I appreciate it most highly, and I sincerely hope that I will deserve it. What you said has been most kind — and I appreciate that, too, I want to tell you, and I would like to have a copy of that statement for my scrapbook. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:55 P-m« in tne R°se Garden at the White House. The group presented the President with a plaque bearing the following inscription : "To Harry S. Truman, 32nd President of The United States who has awakened the conscience of America and given new strength to our democracy by his courageous efforts on behalf of freedom and equality for all citizens. "National Newspaper Publishers Association, 1952." 330 Remarks on Laying the Cornerstone of the New Temple of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. November 16, 1952 Rabbi Gerstenfeld, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: This is a happy occasion for the Washing- ton Hebrew Congregation. I am glad to take part in it. It is also an important oc- casion for all of us, because it symbolizes the great ideals of belief in God and religious tolerance which are the foundations of our Nation. I shall treasure the prayer book you have given to me. In your prayers, we can see the same faith in the God of justice that un- derlies the Christian religion as well as the Jewish religion. It is a great inspiration to hear, in these troubled times, the greetings from the Catholic and Protestant religious leaders which Rabbi Gerstenfeld has just read to us. These greetings demonstrate the mutual respect that exists — and must continue to exist — between the great religions of our country. The leaders of our different creeds should stand together against the outbreaks of bigotry that arise from time to time in this country, as they arise throughout the world. Here we can prevent bigotry, if we will be true to our national ideals. Mutual respect and tolerance for the beliefs of others is the secret of the strength of this blessed land. Freedom of conscience and freedom of thought are the inherent natural rights that are protected by the Constitution of the United States. Religious freedom is not merely something that one group among us enjoys at the sufferance of another. It is a right that all of us must protect for ourselves and for all our countrymen. When George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congrega- tion of Newport, Rhode Island, in 1790, he said that our Government "gives to bigotry no sanction, and to persecution no assist- ance." It is up to us in our time to main- tain those principles. The fact that we believe so strongly in religious freedom does not mean that reli- gion is of no importance in our national life. Quite the contrary. We know that religious principles furnish the fundamental basis for our system of law and government. We know that the deepening of religion and the growth of religion are essential to our welfare as a nation. If we ignore the spiritual foundations of our birth as a na- tion, we do so at our peril. It took a faith in God to win our freedoms. We will need 1050 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 18 [331] that same faith today if we are to keep those freedoms in the face of the terrible menace of totalitarianism and war. If we do not hold to our faith in God, we cannot prevail against the dangers from abroad and the fears and distrust that those dangers create among us here at home. In this great struggle the Washington Hebrew Congregation has its important part to play. This congregation has always been close to our national ideals, and to the center of our national life. It was established by a charter from the Congress of the United States. Other Presidents have taken part in its founding and its meetings over the years. I am glad to share in these ceremonies of your hundredth year, as you lay the cornerstone of your new temple. In this way I express to some small degree, the profound respect I have for the countless members of the Jewish faith who have served our American com- munity, and helped to keep the Nation true to its ideals. % On this cornerstone we see the two tablets of stone, with the Ten Commandments in their ancient Hebrew form, a replica of the tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. We should be thankful for the devout souls who have been true to these Com- mandments down through the ages. May God give you the strength, in the future, to hold these great principles aloft, as a light to those of your faith, and as a source of strength to this Nation in our struggle for freedom for all men, everywhere. note: The President spoke at 3:15 p.m. In his opening words he referred to Dr. Norman Gersten- feld, Rabbi of the Washington Hebrew Congregation. 331 Joint Statement Following a Meeting With the President-Elect. November 18, 1952 PRESIDENT Truman and General Eisen- hower met today at the White House. After conferring together by themselves, they met with the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, the Director of Mutual Security, and General Eisenhower's associates, Sena- tor Lodge and Mr. Dodge. At the end of the talks, the President and General Eisenhower issued the following statement: "We have discussed some of the most im- portant problems affecting our country in the sphere of international relations. In- formation with respect to these problems has been made available to General Eisenhower. "Under our Constitution the President must exercise his functions until he leaves office, and his successor cannot be asked to share or assume the responsibilities of the Presidency until he takes office. "We have worked out a framework for liaison and exchange of information between the present administration and the incoming administration, but we have made no ar- rangements which are inconsistent with the full spirit of our Constitution. General Eisenhower has not been asked to assume any of the responsibilities of the Presidency until he takes the oath of office. "We believe, however, that the arrange- ments we have made for cooperation will be of great value to the stability of our country and to the favorable progress of international affairs. "We are confident that this meeting and that the arrangements we have made today for liaison and cooperation between the present administration and the new adminis- tration furnish additional proof of the ability of the people of this country to manage their affairs with a sense of continuity and with responsibility." note: See also Item 326. IO5I [332] Nov. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents 332 Message to the Congress Transmitting Second Report on the Mutual Security Program. 'November 18, 1952 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the Second Report on the Mutual Security Program, covering operations during the first 6 months of 1952 in furtherance of the purposes of the Mutual Security Act of 195 1 (Public Law 165, 82d Cong.). The report reviews the steps that we have taken with other nations to work for peace and security. The Mutual Security Program is a posi- tive program for peace. It is absolutely es- sential to the security of the United States. At a time when one nation is bent upon world conquest — as the Soviet Union is to- day— other nations, large or small, have but two real choices: To pay the ransom of ap- peasement or to pay the price of building together sufficient strength — military, eco- nomic, political, and moral strength — to keep the peace. The United States and other free nations have chosen to build up their strength. That is what the Mutual Security Program is all about. During the 6-month period reviewed in this report, real progress was made in strengthening the free world. Although much remains to be done, we are heading in the right direction. If we keep on, if each of the partners in this joint effort makes every effort to meet problems in a sensible manner, we shall eventually reach our goal of a secure, peaceful, and confident world. Harry S. Truman note: The Second Report on the Mutual Security Program and its Supplement are printed in House Document 561 (82d Cong., 2d sess.). See also Items 55, 57, 61. 333 Address Before the Association of Military Surgeons. November 19, 1952 IT CERTAINLY is a very great pleasure for me to be here tonight to meet with the Association of Military Surgeons. I don't know when I have enjoyed an entertainment more than I have the one which has just finished. And I was highly intrigued by the presentation of these medals and awards for public service. I am trying to figure out some way so I can get that orchestra and entertainment out home — strictly at the cost of the taxpayers, you un- derstand. First time I have ever had an orchestra to play three Strauss waltzes for me, and then play the first one over for an encore — which I appreciated most highly. The renditions of the soloists and the chorus, I think, are as fine as I have ever witnessed, and I pretend to know something about music — very little — but I do know some- thing. I am particularly glad to join in welcom- ing the distinguished guests from the mili- tary medical services of other nations. You have met together with us not only in the bonds of a common professional interest, but also in the friendship of free men strug- gling against tyranny. I hope you will en- joy your stay here, and that you will carry a good impression with you of this country of ours when you go home. I have many friends among the members of this association, and there is one of them that I know extremely well. I am going to tell you a behind-the-scenes story on him. He was a lieutenant colonel in the airborne forces. He was the one who set up the first hospital on Omaha Beach. He set up the first hospital on the other side of the Rhine. He was down close to Prague somewhere when I got to Potsdam in July of 1945, and I sent for this lieutenant colonel to come to see me at Potsdam. 1052 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 19 [333] When he arrived I said, "Doctor, I want you to go back to the White House and be my physician." He said, "Oh, Mr. President, I can't do that. I have got a hospital full of wounded men. I have to stay and take care of them." I said, "Doc, are there any other doctors in this man's Army?" "Oh, yes," he said, "there are lots of them." "Well," I said, "now you had better leave some of those doctors in charge, and I want you to go back to the White House." He said, "Yes, sir, I understand now who I am talking to." He has been my physician ever since, and if he had only me to take care of, he wouldn't have anything to do. But he spends his time at Walter Reed Hospital really working as a working doctor should. His ideals are those that are expressed in the constitution and the bylaws of this organization — service to the people who need that sort of service. I am very happy to have such a physician in the White House. I have been especially pleased to hear about the way this association is broadening its membership among all the people in the Government who are engaged in health work. To me, this is a splendid recognition of the necessity for teamwork and wide co- operation in providing the best that is pos- sible in medical care. I am glad to have this opportunity to ex- press my gratitude to the members of the health professions who have served in our Armed Forces and other agencies of the Government in meeting the vast health needs of this Nation. As my term of office is drawing to a close, I think back from time to time about the events of the past jY2 years. They have been exciting years. In many ways they have been very difficult; in many respects they have been years of great progress. What the final verdict of history will be, I do not know. But I do know this: Whatever meas- ure of success has been achieved by this ad- ministration has been made possible by the loyal and devoted work of many men and women. In the field of health, we have made a great deal of progress. And for that my thanks go out tonight to all the members of this association and to your fellow health workers throughout the Government. Seven years ago tonight, I think, I made my first public speech on health to this organiza- tion— just 7 years ago tonight. I have been vitally interested in the health and welfare of the people of this country, and I shall con- tinue to be and to carry on that interest as long as I am able to walk around. And I think that will be quite a while. During my term as President, I have been deeply interested in all aspects of our Fed- eral health and medical services. Scientific progress has been so rapid in recent years, and the demand for better medi- cal care and the cost of providing it have both increased so sharply, that we face a whole set of new problems in the field of health. These are problems that can be solved only by a cooperative effort on the part of all the groups in our society. I have tried to get the Federal Government to shoulder its full responsibilities in this effort. I have been sharply attacked and criticized for my insistence that the Federal Govern- ment do its full share in solving our health problems. But I do not mind being at- tacked. The main objective for me has been to get on with the job of improving the Na- tion's health. And in that job we have made a lot of progress. We have made it in spite of politically inspired opposition — and this progress is a source of real satisfaction to me, I will tell you that. I believe the Federal Government has helped a great deal. I be- lieve it could do even more. And I think it will do more as the facts become fully known, and our health problems are more widely understood. This is not, for me at least, a matter of partisan politics. It is a matter of serving the general welfare of the country, and of using the most effective means for doing it. The health of the American people is one of our basic national resources. It is as im- portant to the welfare of our country as our 55-672—66- -70 IO53 [333] Nov. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents land, our water, and our minerals. Our National Government has been concerned about the preservation and development of these resources for decades. It is just as logical, and just as important, for us to be concerned about health. In the field of natural resources, the Gov- ernment acts as one of the many elements concerned. It works in cooperation with the States, with the local governments, with con- sumers, with private and public enterprise. Only through this kind of cooperation can we preserve our resources and our American system. It is the same way in the field of health. Progress there comes from the co- operative efforts of the professions, the pub- lic, and the Government — all branches of the Government. Some of the most remarkable advances we have made are in the field to which many of you are dedicated — the medical care of our military forces. In World War II we achieved near miracles in caring for the wounded. Yet, today, in the fighting in Korea, the mortality rate among the wounded who receive medical aid is only half the rate of World War II. The blood and plasma given by the American people, the marvelous antibiotics, and the greatly im- proved anesthetics administered by superbly trained doctors have helped to bring this about. The helicopter evacuation of wounded from under the very guns of the enemy has saved many lives. As a matter of fact, the helicopter has become so impor- tant to military medicine that helicopter units are now being attached to the medical department. It won't be long before every department in our whole defense will have an air force of its own — better watch out. Let me remind you — it's a good thing we have unification, General. Let me remind you that your wonderful record in Korea has been achieved with one-half the number of physicians for every 1,000 men that was used in World War II. Think over that. One- half the number of physicians per thousand men than were used in World War II — yet the improvement in the saving of lives has been immense. This advance was made possible by cooperation between the Gov- ernment and the medical profession. It is only by the closest kind of coordination be- tween our military medical services and civilian health agencies that we have been able to cut the mortality rate in this way. Another area where we have made great progress is in the care of our veterans. Since World War II we have brought our disabled servicemen the finest health care available. Through the cooperative efforts of private practitioners, professional schools, and hos- pitals, the Veterans Administration is now able to provide an ever-improving standard of medical services for the men and women injured in the service of our country. The advances we have made in improv- ing the health of the American people are, in a great measure, the result of steady progress in medical research. This has meant ceaseless experimentation in our laboratories. It has meant equally tireless efforts to put new discoveries to practical use. They are not much use unless you do put them to practical use. The American people have given admi- rable support to medical research through private organizations, particularly concern- ing polio, cancer, heart disease, and mental health. But the plain fact is that the cost of research is so great it cannot be met solely through private means. The Government must provide financial assistance if this vital work is to continue. Through the Department of Defense, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Pub- lic Health Service, the Federal Government is right now supporting by grants well over a quarter of all the research done in the medical schools of this Nation. And more than this, the services are doing extensive vital research in their own laboratories and in the field. The problems of aviation medi- cine and submarine medicine are receiving careful study. Intensive work is being done to solve the health problems of troops in the field exposed to unfamiliar conditions and little known diseases. 1054 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 19 [333] The most gratifying aspect of our efforts and the accomplishments in military medical research is that our advances in this field benefit the health of all mankind. Some of the greatest discoveries have been made by the medical research of the services, and they have been of benefit to the whole world. The medal you just awarded awhile ago was an example of that. To me, one of the best examples of the importance of the Government in the field of research is the development of radio- isotopes. Some 27,000 shipments of radio- active isotopes have been made by the Atomic Energy Commission to institutions in this country. These materials have proved in- valuable in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with thyroid disease, heart ailments, and cancer. But before these radioactive isotopes could be made available, billions of dollars had to be invested in the development of atomic energy. Only the Government could have borne this great cost burden. And I am here to tell you that I have been working ever since the first atomic bomb was exploded to turn this tremendous source of energy to peaceful purposes. And we are going to do that in the course of another generation. These are examples of the notable progress we have made in the health field through the cooperative efforts of Government and pro- fessional groups. And each advance has in some measure contributed to a further im- provement in the health of the American people. Get that! — each advance has in some measure contributed to a further im- provement of the health of the American people. It has been nationwide. Today, we enjoy the highest standard of health in our history. We can look forward ! to the highest life expectancy we have ever known. Great strides have been made in controlling communicable diseases. As we go forward, however, we meet new problems. Major questions about the chronic diseases remain unsolved. Training takes longer and is more highly specialized. The cost of adequate medical care continues to mount. We can solve these problems with the same success that we have had in the past, if we continue on the path of collabora- tion between the health professions and your Government. But in spite of our successes, we are con- fronted at this time by a violent attack on the whole principle of Government support and assistance in meeting health problems. The attack is led by men who, in my opinion, are sadly mistaken in believing that our whole pattern of progress conceals some hid- den danger to the livelihood and the in- dependence of the medical practitioner. Nothing could be sillier than to fear that progress in the field of health endangers the doctor. But unfortunately this campaign of opposition has had its effect. What has this opposition meant in terms of lost progress? For one thing, our short- ages of doctors and nurses and health per- sonnel have not been met, despite repeated efforts to persuade the Congress to adopt a program of Federal aid to medical education. The shortage of trained personnel is one of the worst problems we face. It is par- ticularly serious when we try to meet the needs of the Armed Forces for doctors and other medical personnel. As you all know, we are now drafting physicians, dentists, and veterinarians. This situation places on all of us — the health professions, the military, the Selective Service System, and the public — a solemn obligation to make wise disposition of our medical manpower. We must in- crease the flow of students into the health professions, and we must staff the institutions which train them. The civilian medical and health services must be maintained in bal- ance with military needs. The trouble, sacrifice, and inconvenience caused by the present necessity of drafting doctors might be obviated — or at least less- ened— if our supply of civilian doctors were not so limited. This is something for the profession to think about. We must train far more doctors than we are training now, 1055 [333] Nov. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents and it is in the long-range interests of the medical profession itself to see that this is done. The opposition we have encountered has resulted in other serious setbacks. Addi- tional local public health units which are needed, particularly in rural areas, have not been established — although the need has been made clear to the Congress time and again. I harp on it every time I go down there and talk to those fellows, but it doesn't seem to have done any good, so far. Also, my pro- posal to use the insurance principle in bring- ing the high cost of medical care within the means of all the people has been misrepre- sented and distorted. As a result, many peo- ple have lost sight of the real issue at stake — making adequate health care available to all, despite limitations of income. That is why I appointed a Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation last Decem- ber. I asked 15 prominent citizens to devote their efforts for 1 full year to a careful and detailed study of our health problems and to give the American people their recom- mendations for needed action. I gave them the broadest charter possible, and I made it clear that their work was to be completely on their own. The Commission has been hard at work. It has held panel discussions with the lead- ing experts in every phase of the health field. It has conducted public hearings in virtually every region in the country. It has taken up the major issues that have been the sub- ject of controversy over these years. I do not know what the Commission will recommend. But I have great confidence in its members. I feel sure that their report next month will be a real contribution to our efforts to bring about better health for all our people. Of course, I cannot tell you what effect this report will have upon the new adminis- tration. I hope they will consider it on its merits. They would be wise to do just that. The people of this country continue to ex- pect their Government to be concerned with their well-being. In the field of health, as in other important aspects of economic and social life, the people will look to the Gov- ernment to meet those great responsibilities which the Government alone can handle. Anyone who interprets the election as a mandate to stop the efforts we have been making for social and economic progress is blind to history — and is far behind the times. I would like to leave one additional thought with you. Despite my arguments with some of the medical spokesmen of our day, I have a deep interest in, and a strong feeling of kinship for, the medical profes- sion. I do not believe that a man should enter the practice of medicine unless he is motivated by the strongest desire to serve the needs of the people who will come under his care. In his hands often rests the deci- sion of life or death. If his only motivation is monetary reward, he will be ill-equipped to meet the challenge of his profession. And that is how I feel about a person who devotes his life to politics and government. Unless he is moved by the strongest desire to improve the lot of his fellow man and to devote his efforts to correcting the social and economic evils of his day, he will never real- ize the true meaning of his profession. You who are public servants — military or civilian — and at the same time are helping to bring better health to your fellow men, surely have the highest ideals to guide you. You are true servants of mankind. You are grand people. It has been a privilege to share your work and your problems for these last 7 years. It has been a pleasure to be with you tonight. I thank you very much for your close attention. note: The President spoke at 9:20 p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. During his remarks he referred to Maj. Gen. Wallace H. Graham, USA, Physician to the President. For the President's statement upon establishing the Commission on Health Needs of the Nation, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 307. IO56 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 20 [334] 334 The President's News Conference of November 20, 1952 the president. Please be seated. [1.] I want you to understand that the election is over, that we are trying to get things in shape to make an orderly turnover of the Government to the successor, and that we want to let the world know that this country is a unified organization in its policy toward the rest of the world. I was very happy to see that General Eisen- hower had told Senator Wiley that he was with the policy on the prisoners of war in Korea. That was one of the main things about which we talked at the meeting the other day when he was down here. Now I will answer questions if I can. Q. Mr. President, could we quote the first part of that statement THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. starting with "I want you to un- derstand that the election is over" until "we talked about." Could we quote that directly? the president. Yes, that's all right. Q. Stop at what point, sir? the president. Well, I don't care. You can stop anywhere you please. [Laughter] Q. Down to one of the things that you talked about at the meeting? Q. Let's quote the whole thing then, Mr. President; it is very brief. the president. That's all right, if you want to. Q. It "keys" in with the Tuesday meeting? the president. The Tuesday meeting. Also "keys" in with the statement I made after I got back to the house.1 [2.] Q. Mr. President, will you meet with General Eisenhower again before January 20th? the president. If he desires it, yes. Q. I didn't hear the answer, sir? the president. If he wants to meet with me, I will be glad to see him any time. [3.] Q. Mr. President, there was some 1 See Item 331. tendency, I noticed, in the New York paper this morning, to say that General Eisen- hower had agreed only with the principle against forced repatriation, but that Senator Wiley had been unwilling to go all the way and say he is just against the thing entirely. It might be merely a matter of semantics — I don't know, sir — but I say that was the point I was thinking about. the president. I am not going into semantics at all. I am going by the head- lines. That is what you all go by. [Laughter] [4.] Q. Mr. President, will you meet with Governor Stevenson? the president. If he desires it, yes. Q. Mr. President, there was a — I forgot where I saw it — published report somewhere, that Governor Stevenson was to see you. It seems to me a definite date was arranged to see you December 1st. the president. Sometime in that neigh- borhood. I think he is coming to Wash- ington, and I will see him when he comes here. Q. Mr. President, do you regard Governor Stevenson as the head of the Democratic Party until the next nomination? the president. Did you read my telegram to Governor Stevenson? If you haven't read it, you will find that I do. Q. Mr. President, will you ask Mr. Steven- son to make a change in the chairman of the Democratic National Committee? the president. I will ask him nothing. Q. I see. the president. Except that I will tell him" I will cooperate with him in reorganizing the Democratic Party. [5.] Q. Mr. President, could we go back to Korea? When General Eisenhower was here, did you raise with him the question of prisoners of war — any course of action? the president. Yes. Yes. Of course the: question was raised. 1057 [334] Nov. 20 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Could you tell us- the president. No, I can't tell you a thing except what was in the communique. [6.] Q. Mr. President, is it too early to discuss your own plans after January 20th? the president. Yes, it is — very much too early. [Laughter] On the 21st day of January, I will tell you what I am going to do. Q. I had special reference with regard to your relationship to the Democratic Party organization? the president. I will be a Democrat all the rest of my life, and I think I will have some influence with the Democratic Party. Q. The second part of that question was, whether you are going to teach — or write the president. I can't answer that, because I don't know. I don't know. For awhile I am not going to do a darn thing but just do as I please — and sit down and do nothing. [Laughter] Q. Are you going to keep an office or apartment in Washington? THE PRESIDENT. No. No. [7.] Q. Mr. President, can you give any description of what kind of transitional ar- rangements you have in mind for the the president. I don't understand the question. There is no kind of transitional arrangement except to turn the Government over as a going concern to the successor. That's all there is to it. Q. What I had in mind, sir, was the fact that in the communique which was issued, toward the end of the first agreement on arrangements — or some phrase like that — I assume the president. It will just be an orderly turnover, which has never been done before. I am establishing a precedent. Q. Yes, sir — I understood that was true. the president. That's all there is to it. Q. What I was going to ask was what details we might have the president. I can't give you any details, Q. Mr. President, were the domestic affairs discussed at your meeting with the General? IO58 THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Did the budget come up? the president. The budget has been un- der scrutiny by Mr. Dodge 2 for the last week. Q. It was not discussed? the president. Not discussed. The budget I shall turn in will be a regular budget, just the same as if I were going to continue to be President. It will be a good, tight budget. It will be an honest budget, just as I have always turned in; and they have been fighting with that budget ever since I have been President, and they have never been able to do very much to it, after I get through with it. [8.] Q. We understand that the Tues- day conference was devoted altogether to foreign relations ? the president. I wouldn't say altogether, principally. [9.] Q. Mr. President, if we may look back a little bit, would you, if you had to do it over again, would you call it police action in Korea? the president. I sure would. And it still is. Police action for the United Nations — to stop aggression — and nothing else. Q. Mr. President, is that — there has been no declaration of war? the president. None whatever. Q. As you know, sir, this expression has been challenged. the president. I agree with that, but I still stand by it. I don't care who challenges it. Let history decide that. That was a political proposition — purely. [10.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman Gross 3 — I believe his name is — has objected to — says that he has objected, to the White House, to Oscar E wing's4 trip to Europe and to India. Have you any comment on that? the president. None whatever. It is 2 Joseph M. Dodge had been named by President- elect Eisenhower to represent him as budget liaison officer at the Bureau of the Budget. 3 Representative H. R. Gross of Iowa. 4 Oscar R. Ewing, Federal Security Administrator. Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 20 [334] none of his business. [Laughter] [11.] Q. Mr. President, Congressman John Taber said the other day that he was worried about the Democrats burning files. Have you heard of any Democrats burning files? the president. Never heard of it. And I don't think John has, either. He is just talking on his suspicions. That is the usual thing in a turnover. For his information, when files become 5 years old, they usually are destroyed and burned, but files of any use are not ever destroyed. Q. Well, Mr. President, don't you have to — isn't there a committee that decides upon the destruction of files? the president. The President decides what he will do with his own files.5 Q. And Congress passes the president. And so do the executive departments. Q. But I thought there was a committee that passed the president. They have their own con- ditions down there. They can do as they please with their files. But there is a law, 1 think, that says they may be destroyed after 5 years, if they are of no use. I think there are some burned nearly every day. [12.] Q. Mr. President, how do you feel about some of your appointments in the executive branches resigning? We have a District Commissioner in Washington who says he is a great American and he is not B On January 8, 1953, the White House announced that the Board of Trustees of the Harry S. Truman Library, Inc., would meet on that day to further develop plans for the fundraising campaign for the library and research center to be built at Grandview, Mo., as a depository for the papers of President Truman. The release sta*ted that at a dinner to be attended on the same day by approximately 70 trustees and other interested persons from all over the country, the President was expected to informally explain his conception of the library and its future role as a center of study for the postwar years. The release noted the President's wish that the building with his Presidential papers be given to the United States Government. going to submit his resignation? the president. That is up to the people themselves. I have no ideas on the subject at all. Q. Didn't hear the question? the president. She asked me if I had any ideas about people resigning. I haven't. They are their own bosses. [13.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to tell us what you think were the major factors in the Republican victory this year? the president. No. It's a little too soon to tell you that. Q. Too soon? the president. Yes. I may tell you a lit- tle later on. Say in about 6 months. [Laughter] [14.] Q. Mr. President, did you take up with General Eisenhower the state of affairs in Europe, and particularly the relations be- tween the French and the German THE PRESIDENT. I did not. [15.] Q. Mr. President, about this time in every administration, the question comes up as to the right of individuals to remove from files in Washington certain papers that they may have written or received during their periods the president. Have you studied the precedents on that? Q. I understand the president. I say, have you studied the precedents on it? I am asking you a ques- tion. Q. I have read some of it the president. Well, you had better study the precedents; and you will find out — you will get the answer to your question. Q. I was wondering, sir, whether you were thinking at all of laying down any suggestions the president. No, I am not. What's the matter, have you got another question ? Q. Yes, sir. the president. Fire away. Q. We face the fact that people are always taking files away from here. General Mac- Arthur took them. Now you have just taken 1059 [334] Nov- 20 Public Papers of the Presidents them back. We are wondering what the precedent was there for his taking them, or of the Army taking them back the president. Those files belong to the Government. He did not take any files. There was just the matter of their storage was what the difficulty was. Q. Did he consent? the president. I don't know. I didn't ask him. [Laughter] [16.] Q. Mr. President, can you say whether you discussed the Iranian problem with General Eisenhower? the president. It was discussed. [17.] Q. Senator Taft said something yesterday to the effect that he thought that the Republicans would look forward to bal- ancing the budget this year, with prospects of a tax reduction in the spring of 1954 — fiscal 1954-55. What do you think of that timetable? the president. I will let Taft study the budget, then make up his mind. He hasn't seen it yet. [Laughter] Q. Senator Taft said in New York that he thought you had submitted a budget much smaller than 85 billion. the president. Senator Taft doesn't know anything about what is going to be in the budget, and when it comes time to submit that budget, I am going to have a budget seminar as usual,6 and all you boys will know all about it, if you want to find out about it — as you usually do. [18.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us what you and Senator Connally discussed recently during his visit? the president. No, I won't. [Laughter] [19.] Q. Mr. President, do you antici- pate, as a result of your meeting with Gen- eral Eisenhower, that he will appoint ad- ditional people to come to Washington. the president. I hope he will. Q. Will they be of Cabinet rank? the president. I hope they will. I can only express a hope. I don't know what he is going to do. You ask him. He will an- swer for himself, I am sure. Q. Have we overlooked anything, Mr. President? the president. Well, if you have, I don't know what it could be. Reporter: Thank you, sir. the president. It's all right. [Laughter] note: President Truman's three hundred and eigh- teenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, November 20, 1952. 6 The President's news conference on the budget, held January 8, 1953, was not transcribed and is therefore not included in this volume. 335 Remarks at a Meeting of an Orientation Course Conducted by the CIA. Nov ember 21, 1952 I AM appreciative of the privilege that Gen- eral Smith has offered me, to come over here and make a few remarks to this organization. I am, naturally, very much interested in it. When I became President — if you don't mind me reminiscing a little bit — there was no concentration of information for the bene- fit of the President. Each department and each organization had its own information service, and that information service was walled off from every other service in such a manner that whenever it was necessary for the President to have information, he had to send to two or three departments to get it, and then he would have to have somebody do a little digging to get it. The affairs of the Presidential Office, so far as information was concerned, were in such shape that it was necessary for me, when I took over the Office, to read a stack of docu- ments that high, and it took me 3 months to get caught up. Only two people around the White House really knew what was going on in the mili- tary affairs department, and they were Admiral Leahy and Admiral Brown. I 1060 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Nov. 21 [335] would talk to them every morning and try to get all the information I could. And finally one morning I had a conversation with Admiral Leahy, and suggested to him that there should be a Central Intelligence Agency, for the benefit of the whole Govern- ment as well as for the benefit of the Presi- dent, so he could be informed. And the Admiral and I proceeded to try to work out a program. It has worked very successfully. We have an intelligence in- formation service now that I think is not inferior to any in the world. We have the Central Intelligence Agency, and all the intelligence information agencies in all the rest of the departments of the Gov- ernment, coordinated by that Central Intelli- gence Agency. This agency puts the infor- mation of vital importance to the President in his hands. He has to know what is going on everywhere at home and abroad, so that he can intelligently make the decisions that are necessary to keep the Government running. I don't think anyone realizes the immen- sity of the problems that face a President of the United States. It was my privilege a few days ago to brief the General who is going to take over the Office on the 20th day of January, and he was rather appalled at all that the President needs to know in order to reach decisions — even domestic decisions. He must know exactly what is implied by what he does. The President makes a deci- sion every day that can affect anywhere from 100 million to a billion and a half people. It is a tremendous responsibility. And I don't think many of you realize the position in which this great country is, in this day and age. We are at the top, and the leader of the free world — something that we did not anticipate, something that we did not want, but some- thing that has been forced on us. It is a re- sponsibility which we should have assumed in 1920. We did not assume it then. We have to assume it now, because it has again been thrust on us. It is our duty, under Heaven, to continue that leadership in the manner that will prevent a third world war — which would mean the end of civilization. The weapons of destruction have become so powerful and so terrible that we can't even think of another all-out war. It would then bring into the war not only the fighting men — the people who are trained as fight- ers— but the whole civilian population of every country involved would be more thor- oughly exposed to death and destruction than would the men at the front. That is what we have to think about care- fully. You are the organization, you are the intelligence arm that keeps the Executive in- formed so he can make decisions that always will be in the public interest for his own country, hoping always that it will save the free world from involvement with the totalitarian countries in an all-out war — a terrible thing to contemplate. Those of you who are deep in the Central Intelligence Agency know what goes on around the world — know what is necessary for the President to know every morning. I am briefed every day on all the world, on everything that takes place from one end of the world to the other, all the way around — by both the poles and the other way. It is necessary that you make that contribution for the welfare and benefit of your Govern- ment. I came over here to tell you how apprecia- tive I am of the service which I received as the Chief Executive of the greatest nation in the history of the world. You may not know it, but the Presidential Office is the most powerful office that has ever existed in the history of this great world of ours. Genghis Khan, Augustus Caesar, great Napoleon Bonaparte, or Louis XIV — or any other of the great leaders and executives of the world — can't even compare with what the President of the United States himself is re- sponsible for, when he makes a decision. It is an office that is without parallel in the his- tory of the world. That is the principal reason why I am so anxious that it be a continuing proposition, 1061 [335] Nov- 2I Public Papers of the Presidents and that the successor to me, and the succes- sor to him, can carry on as if no election had ever taken place. That is the prospect that we are faced with now. I am giving this President — this new President — more information than any other President ever had when he went into office. You gentlemen — and ladies — are con- tributing to that ability of mine to be able to do that. I am extremely thankful to you. I think it is good that some of you have found out just exactly what a tremendous organiza- tion intelligence has to be in this day and age. You can't run the Government without it. Keep up the good work. And when my successor takes over, I want you to give him just the same loyal service that you have given me, and then the country will go for- ward as it should. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 12:27 P-m- in tne Department of Agriculture Auditorium in Wash- ington, to the final session of the Central Intelligence Agency's eighth training orientation course for representatives of various Government agencies. In his opening words he referred to Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Later he referred to Fleet Adm. William D. Leahy, former Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the United States Army and Navy, and Vice Adm. Wilson Brown, former Naval Aide to the President. 336 Statement by the President on the Death of William Green. November 21, 1952 WILLIAM GREEN, for more than half a century, held a place of responsible leadership in American life. For nearly 28 of those years he was president of the American Fed- eration of Labor and as such helped to im- prove the working, living, and economic conditions of millions of American wage earners. His success is a monument to his labor statesmanship. He visualized trade unions as making a great and growing contribution to the Na- tion and saw them playing a vital, construc- tive, and responsible part in the growth of our country. He long had fought to prevent employment discrimination against minor- ities because of race, creed, or national origin. He recognized the relation of American workers to those in other countries and had supported the international labor movement. He encouraged trade unions everywhere in their struggles for political democracy, eco- nomic progress, and world peace. Along the way he had served his State and his Nation. He cheerfully represented labor on various Government boards and commit- tees. He was a fine American patriot who dedicated his life to the service of those who work. He was a friend to me and to thou- sands of others, to whom his wise counsel and understanding were helpful always. He will be missed by Americans in all walks of life. 337 Remarks in Alexandria, Va., at the Cornerstone Laying of the Westminster Presbyterian Church. November 23, 1952 Reverend Dr. Johnson, Reverend Clergy and distinguished guests, and members of the Westminster Presbyterian Church: I am glad you have invited me to come here and take part in laying the cornerstone of your new church. You are a young church, but your growth has been rapid and vigorous. In many ways this ceremony has more significance for me than it would have if you were a large and long established con- gregation, with a lengthy history. For one thing, you symbolize the growth of this great country of ours. In the 12 years since the founding of this church our country 1062 Harry S. Truman, igp Nov. 23 [337] has experienced tremendous growth in population, in industry, and in national wealth. You were founded to serve a rela- tively new community, but since your found- ing that community has increased, and new developments have been added in a wide circle all around this area. Even more important, you demonstrate that the churches are growing and expand- ing in this country. This is a fact of the greatest significance. As our forefathers pushed the frontier into the wilderness, they took their churches with them. The spires of the meetinghouses rose in the midst of the new settlements — in the Appalachians, across the plains of the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys, and on to the Pacific coast. Today, the main stream of our growth is no longer into the wilderness. Frequently, it is taking place in the oldest communities in our land, as it is right here in Alexandria. But churches are still going forward with the new internal expansion of our country. And as an example, a few years ago there was only one church of your denomination in this city of Alexandria. Today, there are four, and the other denominations have in- creased as well as the Presbyterian. I am happy to say the Baptists have, too. There are some who foolishly say that religion is dead or dying in this country. They have not consulted the statistics. The facts are that the churches, and the church memberships, are growing. Perhaps this growth is not rapid enough — perhaps it is not as great as we might wish. Real Chris- tians can never be satisfied with the progress of their faith. But growth there is — and vitality, and widening influence. It is just as important for the future of this country that the churches keep pace with our present expansion as it was for our fore- fathers to carry their faith with them when they laid the foundations of this, great Na- tion. Democracy is first and foremost a spiritual force. It is built upon a spiritual basis — and on a belief in God and an ob- servance of moral principles. And in the long run only the church can provide that basis. Our founders knew this truth — and we will neglect it at our peril. You can see this truth demonstrated in the history of your own denomination. Every denomination has made its particular contri- bution to our Nation, and certainly the Pres- byterians have done their share. One of the great Presbyterians of colonial times was John Witherspoon, the president of Prince- ton University and a signer of the Declara- tion of Independence. He taught the doc- trines of complete religious liberty and national independence. And today many of the finest men and women in our Govern- ment, as this congregation bears witness, are Presbyterians. Indeed, the democratic nature of our Government owes much to the democratic forms and the democratic ex- perience of the Presbyterian church. I can brag a lot on the Presbyterians because I started a Sunday School in the Presbyterian Church when I was 6 years old, and that is where I met Mrs. Truman. This is the Sunday before Thanksgiving. In Thanksgiving, we have a purely Ameri- can holiday — fashioned out of our own his- tory, and testifying to the religious back- ground of our national life. That day expresses what we mean when we say that our form of government rests on a spiritual foundation. Yet, we must not congratulate ourselves too much upon the past, or upon the purely physical growth of our churches in the present. Our churches must keep pace not only with the changes in our physical devel- opment, but also, and more importantly, with the changes of social problems. Our churches must not become a place to hide from the facts of the world about us, nor a mere badge of social respectability. Too often our churches have been blind to their most important function, which is to bring about the application of religious principles to our daily lives and in our work. We must all wage a ceaseless war against injustice in our society. The churches in particular are a force which should fight for brotherhood, 1063 [337] Nov- 23 Public Papers of the Presidents and decency, and better lives for all our people. In foreign affairs, as well as in our domes- tic affairs, the churches should hold up the standard and point the way. The only hope of mankind for enduring peace lies in the realm of the spiritual. The teachings of the Christian faith recognize the worth of every human soul before Almighty God. The teachings of the Christian faith are a sure defense against the godlessness and the brutality of ideologies which deny the value of the individual. We must try to find ways to carry these spiritual concepts into the field of world relations. The point 4 program is one of the ways in which we can do this. That program reflects our belief that we are all our brothers' keepers. And it is an evidence of our faith that by following the path of justice and righteousness we can turn back the dark forces that seek to plunge the earth again into savagery. It is from a strong and vital church — from the strength and vitality of all our churches — that government must draw its vision. In the teachings of our Savior there is no room for bigotry, for discrimination, for the embittered struggle of class against class, or for the hostilities of nation against nation. St. Paul, in writing to the early church at Colosse, said, "Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncir- cumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free- man, but Christ is all, and in all." Here are the seeds of our vision of so- ciety. But we cannot keep that vision strong, or carry it out, without God's help. And the churches must help us to keep that vision always before us. Religious faith is the strength of our Nation, and the hope of all mankind. note: The President spoke at 3:30 p.m. In his opening words he referred to the Rev. Dr. Cliff R. Johnson, pastor of the Westminster Presbyterian Church. 338 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commission, on the Need for Maintaining Rosters of Former Mobilization Personnel. November 25, 1952 My dear Mr. Ratnspec\: During the present fiscal year sharp re- ductions are being made in the number of personnel employed in the administration of programs under the Defense Production Act, and it is expected that by the close of the third quarter employment will have been reduced to approximately 11,000 from a peak of over 26,000 during fiscal year 1952. These and other programs both at home and overseas have benefited to an extraordinary degree through participation of persons with special training from outside the Govern- ment. Consultants, members of advisory committees, and part-time and full-time em- ployees have demonstrated, as they did in World War II, their willingness and ability to serve their Government in time of emer- gency. Many of these executives and spe- cialists are now returning to positions out- side the Government. In addition to persons employed in con- nection with these programs, nearly all Government agencies utilize persons from outside the Government on a continuing basis, many of whom would be valuable in the event of a future emergency. It is, therefore, important that there be an adequate record as to who these people are,, in what capacity they can best serve, where they can be reached, and, if a practicable means can be devised, an up-to-date record maintained as to their subsequent work ex- perience. Defense mobilization planning may ultimately require creating a reserve pool of key executives who can help activate mobilization programs on short notice. I would appreciate your requesting appro- 1064 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Nov. 25 [339] priate departments and agencies as a part of their manpower planning activities for both regular and mobilization programs to maintain suitable rosters, including espe- cially former employees of the sort I have mentioned. These rosters should be main- tained under such general guidance as you find necessary to assure that they include persons possessing skills most needed in the Government, and that the information is maintained in such manner as to be avail- able to other departments and agencies as the occasion may arise. In determining, from time to time, the talents and competence most needed for existing and potential major defense mo- bilization programs, please consult the Bureau of the Budget, the National Secu- rity Resources Board, and the Office of De- fense Mobilization. We are all acutely aware of the impor- tance of skilled personnel in a period of rapid mobilization. The success of defense mobilization efforts depends in very large measure upon the leadership and participa- tion of persons recruited from private life for public service. I am concerned that the program outlined above be initiated at the earliest practicable date. Copies of this letter are being forwarded to the Director of the Budget, the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board, and the Director of Defense Mobilization. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Robert Ramspeck, Chairman, Civil Service Commission, Washington 25, D.C.] 339 Remarks to a Group of Business Paper Editors. November 25, 1952 I DO appreciate your coming up to see the President. I guess this is seven or eight times you have been here — I don't know the exact count, but rather often, I know that, and it has always been a pleasure. I tried the last time you were here to ex- plain to you on that globe some of the things that the country and the world is faced with. We are still faced with the same problems, and probably will be faced with them for quite some time. Our entire effort is of course to win the cold war and get peace in the world, and that will mean, naturally, an industrial ex- pansion for this country and the other coun- tries of the world. It will also mean, probably, expansion in business for you. Because I think that if things do settle down in the world — as I have always hoped that they would — the demand for American know-how, and American machinery, and American gadgets of all sorts will be un- limited in the countries that are slowly and gradually moving forward and improving their standard of living. They will want all these things which we know how to make, and they will want some of our know- how as well, so they can make some of them themselves. And that is where you come in. Your papers and your organizations tell them how to do it, and I hope you will keep up that program as you always have. And as Paul here said, I hope that there won't be an entire severance of our ac- quaintanceship, because I am going back to the farm. I may be able to give you some yellow-legged chickens sometime, from that part of the world. Thank you very much. note: The President spoke at 11:40 a.m. During his remarks he referred to Paul Wooton, chairman of the Executive Committee of the Society of Busi- ness Magazine Editors. IO65 [340] Dec. 1 Public Papers of the Presidents 340 Citation Accompanying Distinguished Service Medal Presented to Admiral Souers. December 1, 1952 THE President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Medal to REAR ADMIRAL SIDNEY WILLIAM SOUERS UNITED STATES NAVAL RESERVE for service as set forth in the following Citation: For exceptionally meritorious service to the Government of the United States in a duty of great responsibility from July 1944 to November 1952. With a solid back- ground of several years of experience as an Intelligence Officer in the United States Na- val Reserve and qualified professionally and intellectually to render a vital service to the cause of national security, Rear Admiral Souers, as Assistant Chief of Naval Intelli- gence in Charge of Plans and Deputy Chief of Naval Intelligence during the period July 1944 to January 1946, served as a repre- sentative of the Secretary of the Navy on a special committee whose recommendations with respect to the formation of a govern- ment-wide central intelligence culminated in the creation of the National Intelligence Authority and the Central Intelligence Group. Postponing a return to private life, he became the first Director of Central In- telligence and remained with this group from January to July 1946, during which time the new organization was firmly established. Responding to a request of the Atomic Energy Commission within a few months after his return to private life, Rear Admiral Souers conducted a thorough survey of the intelligence requirements of the Commis- sion during the period May through August 1947 and submitted a plan resulting in the creation of an intelligence unit within the Commission and the coordination of the activities of that unit with the Central In- telligence Group. As First Executive Secre- tary of the New National Security Council from September 1947 to January 1950, he utilized his vast knowledge of the problems of national security and his marked ability to achieve cooperation among all groups operating in this field to successfully inte- grate the functions of the Council with those of other governmental agencies and to co- ordinate all governmental activities in the field of internal security. After accomplish- ing his mission of establishing the National Security Council on a sound basis, he relin- quished his role as Executive Secretary and became a special consultant to the President of the United States on problems affecting the nation's security. His brilliant adminis- trative ability, keen foresight and tireless efforts toward the fulfillment of a strong and effective security program reflect the high- est credit upon Rear Admiral Souers and the United States Naval Service. Harry S. Truman note: The presentation was made by the President in a ceremony at the White House at 10:45 a-m« 341 Letter to the Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency, on the New Wage Agreement in the Coal Industry. December 4, 1952 [ Dated December 3, 1952. Released December 4, 1952 ] Dear Mr. Putnam: responsibilities of Government to the new As you know, I am doing all that I can Administration in as calm and stable an to assure an orderly transition of the heavy atmosphere as possible. I am particularly 1066 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 4 [341] anxious to avoid the development of any major economic disturbances which could not be resolved satisfactorily during my re- maining tenure in office. You have had before you in the bitumi- nous coal wage case a matter which could lead to such a situation. The Bituminous Coal Operators' Association and the United Mine Workers of America signed an agree- ment on September 29, 1952, effective Octo- ber 1, extending their 1950 contract for at least 12 months and amending it to provide an increase in wages of $ 1.90 per day. The Wage Stabilization Board, after extensive study and hearing, ruled that only $1.50 per day of the increase was approvable under stabilization policy. Both the operators and the union subsequendy appealed to you to overrule the Board and permit the payment of the full amount of the negotiated increase. You have heard the case and discussed its ramifications with me. From a stabilization standpoint, there are many reasons for upholding the decision of the Wage Stabilization Board and disallow- ing payment of the disputed 40 cents per day of the agreed-upon wage increase. These stabilization considerations are important. The stabilization program is a vital part of our defense mobilization. The mobiliza- tion program, in turn, is vital to our security. We cannot carry through on our essential defense program without effective economic stabilization. It is therefore my firm inten- tion to continue a strong stabilization pro- gram and turn it over to the new Adminis- tration as a functioning, effective entity. If the new Administration then wants to scrap price, wage, salary and rent controls, it will be free to do so on its own responsibility. But it should be in a position to decide this important issue on the basis of a calm ap- praisal of the situation in a calm atmos- phere— and not be pushed into a hasty deci- sion by the existence of an economic crisis. The issues in the coal case certainly affect stabilization, but they go far beyond stabili- zation considerations. The decision in this case must not only recognize the importance of continuing stabilization as an effective program, but must also face up to problems completely apart from stabilization which are involved in the transition from this Ad- ministration to its successor. In view of my concern on this point, and in view of the fact that the decision you had planned to make would not, in my opinion, have met the requirements of this unique situation, I feel it is necessary for me to exer- cise the final authority in the coal case. The ultimate responsibility is mine in any event. As you know, I have made a careful re- view of all of the facts in the case and have had full discussions on it with you and other Government officials, including, in particu- lar, the Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service has impressed me most solemnly with the probable conse- quences to coal production of upholding the Wage Board's decision, and has urged the approval of this contract. The overriding consideration to my mind is not the danger that there would otherwise be a work stoppage, but rather that the situa- tion it would cause would be one the Gov- ernment is not equipped to meet and resolve promptly. There are, at present, unusually large stocks of coal above ground. A work stop- page in the coal industry, while adversely affecting some parts of the economy, would not immediately cause a national emergency in which the Government would be author- ized to act. The stoppage would have to continue for some time before any Govern- ment authority could be invoked. Such an emergency would arise at just about the time my successor took office. I am not willing to take an action that will create such a crisis for my successor. In making my decision, I realize I am rejecting the recommendations of the top officials of Government concerned with stabilization — the Wage Stabilization Board, the Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency, and the Director of Defense Mobili- 1067 [341] Dec. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents zation. Much as I regret the necessity for doing that, I believe considerations outside stabilization are of major importance in this matter. I am therefore directing your Agency to approve the bituminous coal wage agreement as negotiated. I recognize the fact that approval of the additional 40 cents per day in the miner's wages could have an unfavorable effect upon stabilization, but I am convinced that it will not be a serious effect if the special circum- stances under which it is approved are clearly understood. On the price side, I understand from the testimony you received from the operators' representatives that since bituminous coal is now selling generally below ceilings the producers would find little practical benefit in seeking higher price ceilings as a result of this action because very few of them could collect those higher prices in the market place. So that while the cost of producing coal would rise by perhaps five or six cents a ton, the effect on ceilings would be slight. As for its influence on other wage levels and on collective bargaining generally, I am also convinced the effect would be slight. Everyone is cognizant of the difficult condi- tions under which coal miners work and live. Everyone knows that the wage increases customarily given coal miners are, as a prac- tical matter, discounted by other workers who have never envied the miner his hazardous, unpleasant and unhealthy work, his living conditions in isolated communities and his sporadic employment. The same reasons which keep other workers from wishing to become coal miners also keep them from expecting — or their employers from offering — wage increases to match every increase the miner receives. They know that for all of his greater-than-average hazards of loss of life, eyesight or limbs, the miner has less-than-average economic secu- rity and less-than-average benefits in some of the so-called fringes like vacation and holi- day pay. They know that the miners are among the very few groups of workers in the country who have been unable to main- tain progress in real spendable income in the last few years. These were among reasons put forward by both the operators and the union for ap- proval of their contract. Standing alone, these reasons do not, in my judgment, afford sufficient ground for overruling the Wage Board's decision from the point of view of stabilization. But they do reinforce my belief that my decision will not have serious inflationary effects upon wages and upon the economy generally. Both you and Mr. Fowler have made a vigorous and convincing case in favor of the decision you had planned to make to uphold the Wage Board. But because of the exceptional situation involved here, I cannot accept your recommendation. I know this will create some problems for the stabilization program and I deeply re- gret that. I am impressed by the outstand- ing job the stabilization agencies have done under severe handicaps during the past 23 months in containing the inflationary pres- sures in our economy. This case presents a unique situation. My decision should not be interpreted as estab- lishing any new pattern or policy. I expect you and the other officials administering the stabilization laws to continue to do as well as you can, within the limits set by Congress, to hold the stabilization line in the interest of the national defense and the well-being of our people. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Roger L. Putnam, Administrator, Eco- nomic Stabilization Agency, Washington 25, D.C.] 1068 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 4 [342] 342 The President's News Conference of December 4, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no particular announcements to make, but I will listen for questions. [1.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to get this out of the way before we get into more confusing matters. There's a Repre- sentative Mack 1 of Washington State who has assailed what he said is your proposal to increase the area of Olympic National Park. Have you gotten such a protest? the president. Never heard of it. Q. Have you proposed increasing that area out there? the president. No. I never heard of it. Q. Not familiar with it at all? the president. I don't even know where Olympic National Park is, unless it's Mount Rainier. Q. Washington State. [Laughter} the president. Unless it's Mount Rainier. Q. The Olympic peninsula. [2.] Q. Mr. President, can you tell us something about your talks with Governor Stevenson? the president. I think the Governor pretty well covered the ground this morning. His report of the meetings was entirely accurate. [3.] Q. Mr. President, I have been asked to ask you the following question. THE PRESIDENT. Shoot. Q. Do you approve the Justice Depart- ment's prosecution of Ray Brennan of the Chicago Sun-Times, for revealing a tieup between gambling, hoodlums, and politicians in Chicago? the president. The Department of Jus- tice is handling the matter, and it knows how to handle it. And they will be right, in whatever manner they handle it. [Pause] Well, well! [4.] Q. Mr. President, any statement on the resignation of Mr. Cox? 2 the president. I haven't received his resignation. [5.] Q. Mr. President, in the reorganiza- tion of the Democratic Party, which seems to be in the offing, do you think that a State chairman of the caliber of men like Averell Harriman would be worthwhile? the president. Certainly. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, what is this — what is this reorganization of the party? I hear about it the president. I don't know what is in- tended to be conveyed by reorganization. It is a continuation of the Democratic Na- tional Committee on the basis the National Committee always worked on, and it is with the intention of keeping the Democratic Party alive so that it can take over the Con- gress in 1954. Q. Are you pretty confident you can, sir? the president. Sure. I am always con- fident when it comes to the Democrats. [6.] Q. Mr. President, there has been a recurrent rumor here, for about 3 weeks now, that Justice Frankfurter 3 is resigning, to be replaced by the president. I haven't heard about it. The Justice was down to see me with the other Justices just a few days ago, and he gave me no indication that he intended to quit. That's a right good job. I don't think I would quit it. [Laughter] [7.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your action in the coal thing,4 are you considering 1 Representative Russell V. Mack of Washington. 2 Later the same day the White House released the text of the exchange of correspondence in which the President accepted the resignation of Archibald Cox as Chairman of the Wage Stabilization Board. 3 Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United States Supreme Court. 4 On the preceding day the President had ap- proved the agreement of the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association and the United Mine Workers (Footnote continued at bottom of next page.) IO69 [342] Dec. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents trying to control other wages? the president. The controls will continue as they always have been. Q. Do you think it will be more difficult, after allowing this increase? the president. I can't answer the ques- tion. Q. Are there other contracts like that? the president. I don't know of any. Q. You don't know of any? the president. No. Q. Mr, President, along that line, is it your intention that your order the other day would cover the anthracite miners, too? the president. I don't know. That hasn't come up to me. Q. That hasn't come up? the president. No. The order spoke for itself. I think that the letter5 that I wrote very plainly set the thing out. I don't think it needs any further explanation that I can see. [8.] Q. Mr. President, I didn't get a chance to see Governor Stevenson. Was it agreed between you that Mr. Mitchell ought to stay as national chairman? 6 the president. Yes. [Pause] It's a lot easier to write sitting down than it is standing up, isn't it? [9.] Q. Could you tell us, Mr. Presi- dent, of any of the plans for the Democratic Party in the aftermath of the election? the president. No. I don't know of any- thing special that is necessary for me to men- tion. I think everything necessary has been said about it. [10.] Q. Mr. President, do you agree with Senator Taft's evaluation of Eisen- of America (signed September 29, 1952, to be effec- tive October 1), which extended their 1950 contract for at least 12 months and amended it to pro- vide an increase in wages of $1.90 a day. The Wage Stabilization Board had ruled earlier that only $1.50 a day of the increase could be approved under stabilization policy. eSee Item 341. e Stephen A. Mitchell, chairman of the Demo- cratic National Committee. hower's Secretary of Labor-designate? 7 the president. I have no comment on that. The Secretary of Labor-designate is a very fine gentleman. [11.] Q. Mr. President, what do you think of Ike's Cabinet? the president. I have no comment. You want to give these people a chance to operate. Let's find out what they'll do. This com- ment in advance never does anybody any good. If they make any mistakes, why they will certainly be pointed out by the Democratic Party. And if they do what's right and get along all right, I'll be just as happy as anybody else. [12.] Q. Mr. President, did you and the Governor reach any conclusion about how you will take care of the deficit of the Demo- cratic National Committee? the president. Well, it will be taken care of in the usual way. We'll raise the money and pay it off, as we always do. [13.] Q. Mr. President, is there any possibility of your attending the coronation of our Queen next June? 8 the president. I wish I could, but I know very well that I can't go. I'm sorry. I would like very much to be there. I have been very cordially invited by several people on the other side, but I can't go. Q. Why couldn't you go, sir? the president. I'll be having too much to do. I think I am going to spend a good deal of time resting. That will be going on about that time. Q. Will the resting still be going on, in June? the president. No, I am sure I can't go. I would like to very much. [14.] Q. Have you made up your mind on what you are going to do? the president. No, I haven't. I don't T Martin P. Durkin of Chicago, 111., general president of the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steamfitters of the U.S. and Canada and a Democrat. 8 Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, who was crowned on June 2, 1953. IO7O Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 4 [342] know what I am going to do. As I say, I am going to see what it's like not to have anything to do all day. I have been work- ing 17 hours a day now straight for 30 years, and that's a long time. [15.] Q. Mr. President, how would you say the changeover is going? the president. What's that? Q. How is the changeover going, with these new Cabinet people coming to town? the president. They will get all the in- formation that we can possibly give them. It will be the most orderly turnover that has ever been made from one administra- tion to another. Q. Mr. President, will the Eisenhower people have somebody down here to work with the OPS and ESA staffs? the president. It has been suggested to them, but I don't know whether they will or not. It has been suggested to them. I sug- gested to him when he was here, that he send people for information in every depart- ment of the Government and it would be furnished to them, and he has so far gone a long way toward doing that. [16.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on the further delay of the ratifica- tion of the German treaties of the German the president. No, I have no comment on that. [ 17.] Q. Mr. President, at your last press conference you said you were not going to live in Washington, or have an office. the president. No. No, I have lived in Washington for 18 years, and that's quite long enough. Q. Would you like to tell us where you are going to live? the president. Independence, Missouri, at 219 North Delaware Street. [Laughter] Q. Telephone number? the president. The telephone number is not in the book. [18.] Q. Mr. President, when you and Mr. Stevenson talked things over, presum- ably the election, did you decide why the Republicans won? the president. No. I am leaving that up to you. You fellows know all about every- thing. I have seen you speculate on what I am going to do, what I haven't done, and what will be done in the future. Why don't you speculate on this which is past, and come up with the answer? You are perfectly capable of doing it. [Laughter] Q. I thought we would appeal to authori- tative sources. [19.] Q. Visiting your home in Inde- pendence, the guard told me that that enormous fence was something you had to bear with because you were President. Can you tear it down now? the president. No, you can't. When Herbert Hoover went back to his home in California, after 1932, the souvenir hunters almost tore his house down, and he had to put a fence around it. And we are going to leave that fence there, not because we like it, but it's just the American way to take souvenirs. It was said in the First World War that the French fought for their country, the British fought for freedom of the seas, and the Americans fought for souvenirs. And I think that was correct. [Laughter] [20.] Q. Mr. President, it has been said that you have been asked to write a news- paper column. the president. Oh, I have been invited to do most everything. You can't name anything that I haven't been asked to do. Q. Do you contemplate doing that? the president. Well, no. I have been fussing at columnists for a long time. I think it would be bad for them for me to turn into one. [Laughter] Q. Wouldn't you like to come to Presi- dent Eisenhower's press conferences? the president. No, I would have no desire to do that. Q. You wouldn't? the president. When I get through with press conferences, I am going to stay away from them. That will be up to him. That will be his funeral, not mine. Q. Mr. President, do you think Ike should 1071 [342] Dec. 4 Public Papers of the Presidents continue to have press conferences? the president. Well, of course. I think they are a good thing. I think it's one insti- tution in this country that is entirely different from all the other countries in the world, and I am sure he will continue them. Q. Mr. President, in that connection, do you feel that regular press conferences add to the function of government? the president. I really do, yes. It's one way that the President has to get his ideas over, in a way that people can understand. I think they are a good thing, and I have had, I think, most pleasant ones. I think I have had just about as much fun out of them as you have. Robert G. Nixon of the International News Service: Thank you, Mr. President. the president. That's all right, Bob. note: President Truman's three hundred and nine- teenth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, December 4, 1952. 343 Statement by the President on German Steps Toward Acceptance of the European Defense Community Agreements. December 6, 1952 I AM GRATIFIED by the news from Ger- many of the first parliamentary action with regard to the European Defense Community Treaty and pleased to note that the Bunde- stag at the same time passed in second read- ing the Contractual Conventions. I am conscious of the profound significance of this demonstration of the will of the people through their elected representatives. To- gether, these agreements will in due course enable the Federal Republic to assume an important and honorable role in the family of free nations, will help create a common defense force for the protection of Western Europe and will constitute an additional major step toward European unity, a goal which is ardently desired by Europeans and their friends throughout the democratic world. It is realized that the vote by the Bunde- stag does not constitute final action on ac- count of certain other requirements con- nected with the ratification process in the Federal Republic. It is however our earnest hope that these can be completed as prompdy as possible, and that this will soon be fol- lowed by ratification by the other states which have signed the conventions. I feel confident that all those concerned with these key steps will act, conscious of the serious political and other consequences to the posi- tion of Germany and to the defense of the free world if ratification is long delayed or not accomplished. 344 Statement by the President on the Need for "Operation Skywatch." December 7, 1952 YOUR GOVERNMENT has been asked frequendy in recent months why a Ground Observer Corps of civilian volunteers is needed to help defend our country. After a thorough evaluation of our Air Defense System I issued a statement, on July 12, 1952, endorsing the necessity that this Corps oper- ate 24 hours a day.1 The foremost reason 1 See Item 202. why "Operation Skywatch" is carried on day and night is to have in being an or- ganization capable of detecting low-flying aircraft that have avoided detection by our radar warning system and thus to prevent a surprise attack upon our country. On this December 7, 1952, the nth anni- versary of the surprise attack on Pearl Har- bor, I wish to call to your attention the fact 1072 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 11 [345] that an attack of this nature can happen again. Because of the immense destructive power of the atomic bomb we must main- tain vigilance so that our cities and our in- dustries will be less vulnerable to devastating attack. I therefore call upon all citizens who re- side in communities which have been designated as possible enemy air approach areas to volunteer their services for this vital task. note: On December 2, 1952, the White House an- nounced the development of another defense plan, to be placed in operation within 3 months, which would also minimize the effectiveness of an air attack on the country. The plan, called CONEL- RAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation), was developed on the basis of Executive Order 103 12 whereby the President authorized the Federal Com- munications Commission either to silence radio stations or to control their operations so that elec- tromagnetic radiations might not aid the naviga- tion of hostile aircraft, guided missiles, and other devices of similar purpose. The release stated that more than 1,000 privately- owned standard broadcast stations had already volunteered to participate in the CONELRAD sys- tem, which provided, in case of an air raid alert, that they switch to one of two predesignated con- trolled frequencies (640 kc or 1240 kc) in order to broadcast to the public a continuous flow of accurate, official information, news, and civil de- fense instructions. 345 The President's News Conference of December 11, 1952 the president. Please be seated. If you have got a question, I will try to answer it. [1.] Q. Mr. President, Senator Watkins has suggested that you invite both General Eisenhower and General MacArthur to the White House for a Korean strategy confer- ence? Q. Louder. Q. Couldn't hear a thing. the president. Tony 1 told me that Senator Watkins of Utah had suggested a Korean conference between myself and General MacArthur and General Eisen- hower. I can't see any good purpose to be served by that. They are welcome to talk to me any time they want to. Q. Mr. President, do you intend to invite General MacArthur to come to Washington? the president. I do not. General Mac- Arthur is in the Army, and on active duty, and if he has anything that is of use to the Defense Department, he ought to tell them so they can make use of it. Q. Mr. President, what do you think of the General Eisenhower statement, that he has no trick solution for the Korean the president. He was quoting me. I made the statement quite some time ago in the campaign. He just quoted me. Not intentionally, however. Q. Mr. President, you feel that it is any Army man's duty to come forward if he has the president. Certainly it is. Certainly it is. He is on active duty and will be the rest of his life. The law provides for that. Q. Mr. President, General MacArthur said that nobody has listened to his counsels since he came back. It seems to me the Mac- Arthur investigating committee 2 went over his war plans pretty thoroughly. the president. They went over them completely and thoroughly, and I read every word of the testimony up there. And the committee did not come up with any sug- gestions or any advice to me or to the Defense Department. 1 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. 2 The committee hearings on the dismissal of General MacArthur from his command in the Far East are printed in "Hearings Before the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, on the Military Situation in the Far East" (Government Printing Office, 1 95 1, Parts 1-5, 3691 pp.). 1073 [345] Dec. n Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Mr. President, have you talked to General Mac Arthur since Wake Island? 3 THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. Have you seen him since then? the president. I made a 14,400-mile trip to get a lot of misinformation. He didn't even do the courtesy, which he should have done, of reporting to the President when he came back here. I have never seen him, and I don't want to see him. Q. You mean that would be the appro- priate thing, that he should ask to see you? the president. He should have come to see me and reported, as soon as he got here. Any decent man would have done it. Q. Mr. President, if General MacArthur does not respond to the invitation in the press, would it seem logical that the Joint Chiefs should request him to come to Wash- ington to lay out his whole solution? the president. I think that the Joint Chiefs know all about what is in his mind. If they want to hear it again, why it's all right with me. Q. Mr. President, what misinformation did the General give you? the president. He said the Chinese would not come into Korea, that it would be possible to send a division of the regular Army to Germany for occupation purposes to relieve another division over there by the first of January. And he also said that the war was over, he was sure. Q. That was a little fast. I wonder if we could ask Mr. Romagna 4 to read that back? the president. Well — sure. Read it to them, Jack. Q. He said the Chinese Mr. Romagna: He said the Chinese would not come into Korea, that it would be pos- sible to send a division of the regular Army to Germany for occupation purposes, to relieve another division the president. This division, you un- derstand, was to come from Korea. Mr. Romagna: over there by the first of January. And he also said that the war was over, he was sure. Q. Could we quote that, Mr. President? the president. Why it's in the report that was made when we got back here. I don't think I should say that you can quote me direcdy. Q. All right. the president. Paraphrase it. Tony,5 did you have a question? Q. Mr. President, the views that General MacArthur expressed before the investigat- ing committee, on ways of handling the Ko- rean war, were rejected by the administra- tion, I believe, because it was felt that his plan would have enlarged the war. the president. Yes, it would have in- volved Q. Now, are you — do you still reject- 8 For the President's statement upon meeting with General MacArthur on Wake Island, see 1950 vol- ume, this series, Item 268. 4 Jack Romagna, White House Official Reporter. the president. It would have involved us in all-out war in the Far East, and we have been strenuously trying to avoid that all the time. Q. In other words, you would look, then, for something new that could bring an honorable setdement without enlarging the war? the president. We have been making an endeavor to have that very thing take place. That's the reason we have been negotiating all this time to reach an armistice and an agreement for peace; and we haven't been able to reach it because the Communists want to murder the prisoners of war that do not want to go back. We are not going to let them do it, as long as I am President. Q. Do you think it is possible, sir, that General MacArthur would have any plan for a solution of the war now, that he did not have at the time of the Senate hearings? the president. Expressing my private opinion, that is what I believe. That is what your question implied, that it was nothing new — didn't have anything new to offer. I don't think he has. 5 Anthony H. Leviero of the New York Times. 1074 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 11 [345] Q. Well, if General Eisenhower has a plan, would you put it into effect immedi- ately, so that we could shorten the war? the president. Why, certainly. I would put it into effect right now. I want to stop wars just as badly as anybody in the country does. I have tried in every way possible to bring it to a successful conclusion. I tried to do it without involving us in an all-out war in the Far East. Q. Would it have been possible for Gen- eral MacArthur to have called on you any time during this the president. Yes, certainly. Of course it would. He did not want to see me. Q. Well, Mr. President, I am a little bit confused about military protocol. When General Eisenhower came back this time, I asked him at his press conference if he had reported to Congress, and he rebuked me by saying that he couldn't unless he was in- vited to. Now that doesn't apply to you as Commander in Chief the president. The first thing General Eisenhower did when he came back from Europe was to report to me. And that is exacdy protocol. Q. Without invitation? By his initia- tive? the president. That is his duty. That is his duty. Q. Mr. President, if General Eisenhower has any new plans to solve the Korean war, he owes it to you and the country to report directly to you? the president. That's correct — that's correct. Q. Mr. President, in this case, don't you think General MacArthur was inhibited be- cause you dismissed him? the president. No, not necessarily. That didn't keep him from following military etiquette. He missed an awful good chance for a headline by not coming in. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, if it is General Mac- Arthur's duty to report any plan he may have to you, and if he does not fulfill his duty by reporting, what follows then, what steps do you take? the president. I wouldn't take any, now. It's a little late. Q. Mr. President, I want to make it clear, you don't care to see General MacArthur now? the president. No, there's no reason for me to see him. Q. If he asked to see you, would you see him? the president. I certainly would. Of course I would. I wouldn't be discourteous to anybody. I never have been. [Pause] Has the "well" run dry? Q. No, sir. Q. Can't keep up. Q. I think you have filled up the creek, sir. [Laughter] the president. Is that what's the matter? [2.] Q. Mr. President, the Attorney General, I believe it is, of Massachusetts, says that you were urged during the political campaign to announce that you would go to Korea, and establish — let out the hint that the war would be over by Christmas — some such thing as that, and you rejected the idea? Was such an idea put up to you? the president. It was suggested, and I decided that it wouldn't serve any good pur- pose, it would be just a piece of demagogu- ery; and that is what it turned out to be. [3.] Q. Mr. President, do you plan to send a State of the Union Message and an Economic Report to Congress in January? THE PRESIDENT. YeS. [4.] Q. I want to get that straight — you said that you thought that it would serve no good purpose, would be just a piece of demagoguery, and that is what it turned out to be? the president. That's correct. Q. What did you mean, the current trip that is on now is a piece of demagoguery? the president. Yes. The announcement of that trip was a piece of demagoguery, and then of course he had to take it after he had made the statement. What's the matter, Tony? [Here Roger Tubby spo\e to the President.] 1075 [345] Dec. n Public Papers of the Presidents Well, Roger 6 suggested that maybe some good might come out of the trip. If it does, I will be the happiest man in the world. I hope some good can come out of it. Q. Well, Mr. President, do you think you could settle the Korean war without settling the whole Communist world-domination war against all the free nations? the president. That is a very complicated question, and I can't answer it. I have been trying to settle the situation in Korea as hard as I can for the last year and a half. Q. If they stop in Korea, they might step up in Indochina? the president. I am no prophet. I am not making any prophecies. You can draw your own conclusions. What you say is pos- sible, of course. [5.] Q. Mr. President, do you think economic controls should be extended be- yond April 30th? THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I do. Q. Mr. President, how are we going to hold the economic controls program to- gether with Mr. Putnam stepping out this 6 Roger Tubby, Assistant Press Secretary. weekend, and no industry members on the Wage Board? the president. We will have industry members on the Wage Board before the week is out, and we will have a successor to Mr. Putnam, whenever he decides to quit.7 Q. IsthatMr.DiSalle? the president. He is under considera- tion. Q. Have the industry members before the week is out? the president. Yes. Had plenty of volunteers for those places. Good men, too. Q. That about covers it, Mr. President? the president. As far as I am concerned. Q. Thank you very much. note: President Truman's three hundred and twentieth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, December 11, 1952. 7 Roger L. Putnam resigned as Administrator of the Economic Stabilization Agency on December 22, and Michael V. DiSalle was sworn in to that post on the same day (see Item 348). See also Item 346. 346 Letter to the Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency, on the Wage Stabilization Board. December 13, 1952 Dear Mr. Putnam : I have received your letter of this date containing your recommendations with re- spect to the administration of the wage stabilization program pending the resump- tion of normal operations by the Wage Stabilization Board. The course of action you recommend has my approval. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Roger L. Putnam, Administrator, Eco- nomic Stabilization Agency, Washington 25, D.C.] note: In his letter Mr. Putnam stated that all of the regular and alternate members representative of industry on the Wage Stabilization Board had resigned from their positions on the Board, and that the daily operations of the Board had been brought to a standstill. Mr. Putnam proposed that the Economic Stabilization Agency exercise its existing authority to act in the absence of a func- tioning Wage Stabilization Board. The letter con- cluded: "It is with great reluctance that I find it necessary to suspend the operations of the tripartite Wage Stabilization Board and to proceed to admin- ister the wage stabilization program directly under my authority. With your approval, however, I shall immediately provide for such administration. At the same time, it is my intention and recommenda- tion that the Government continue to make every effort to reestablish the tripartite Wage Stabilization Board with effective participation by representatives of business and industry, as well as of labor and of the public, as the best means of carrying out the wage stabilization program." IO76 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 15 [347] 347 Address at the National Archives Dedicating the New Shrine for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. December 15, 1952 Mr. Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. Larson, the Librarian of Congress, the Archivist: We are assembled here on this Bill of Rights Day to do honor to the three great documents which, together, constitute the charter of our form of government. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are now assembled in one place for display and safekeeping. Here, so far as is humanly possible, they will be protected from dis- aster and from the ravages of time. I am glad that the Bill of Rights is at last to be exhibited side by side with the Constitution. These two original docu- ments have been separated far too long. In my opinion the Bill of Rights is the most important part of the Constitution of the United States — the only document in the world that protects the citizen against his Government. We venerate these documents not because they are old, not because they are valuable historical relics, but because they still have meaning for us. It is 161 years today since the Bill of Rights was ratified. But it is still pointing the way to greater freedom and greater opportunities for human hap- piness. So long as we govern our Nation by the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights, we can be sure that our Nation will grow in strength and wisdom and freedom. Everyone who holds office in the Federal Government or in the government of one of our States takes an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. I have taken such an oath many times, including two times when I took the special oath required of the President of the United States. This oath we take has a deep significance. Its simple words compress a lot of our his- tory and a lot of our philosophy of govern- ment into one small space. In many coun- tries men swear to be loyal to their king, or to their nation. Here we promise to up- hold and defend a great document. This is because the document sets forth our idea of government. And beyond this, with the Declaration of Independence, it expresses our idea of man. We believe that man should be free. And these documents establish a system under which man can be free and set up a framework to protect and expand that freedom. The longer I live, the more I am impressed by the significance of our simple official oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Per- haps it takes a lifetime of experience to understand how much the Constitution means to our national life. You can read about the Constitution and you can study it in books, but the Consti- tution is not merely a matter of words. The Constitution is a living force — it is a growing thing. The Constitution belongs to no one group of people and to no single branch of the Government. We acknowledge our judges as the interpreters of the Constitution, but our executive branch and our legislative branch alike operate within its framework and must apply it and its principles in all they do. The Constitution expresses an idea that belongs to the people — the idea of the free man. What this idea means may vary from time to time. There was a time when peo- ple believed that the Constitution meant that men could not be prevented from ex- ploiting child labor or paying sweatshop wages. We no longer believe these things. We have discovered that the Constitution does not prevent us from correcting social injus- tice, or advancing the general welfare. The idea of freedom which is embodied in these 55-672—66 -71 1077 [347] Dec 15 Public Papers of the Presidents great documents has overcome all attempts to turn them into a rigid set of rules to sup- press freedom. As we look toward the future, we must be sure that what we honor and venerate in these documents is not their words alone, but the ideas of liberty which they express. We are engaged here today in a symbolic act. We are enshrining these documents for future ages. But unless we keep alive in our hearts the true meaning of these documents, what we are doing here could prove to be of little value. We have treated the documents themselves with the utmost respect. We have used every device that modern science has in- vented to protect and preserve them. From their glass cases we have excluded everything that might harm them, even the air itself. This magnificent hall has been constructed to exhibit them, and the vault beneath, that we have built to protect them, is as safe from destruction as anything that the wit of mod- ern man can devise. All this is an honorable effort, based upon reverence for the great past, and our generation can take just pride in it. But we must face the fact that all this pomp and circumstance could be the exact opposite of what we intend. This ceremony could be no more than a magnificent burial. If the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were enshrined in the Ar- chives Building, but nowhere else, they would be dead, and this place would be only a stately tomb. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence can live only as long as they are enshrined in our hearts and minds. If they are not so enshrined, they would be no better than mummies in their glass cases, and they could in time become idols whose wor- ship would be a grim mockery of the true faith. Only as these documents are reflected in the thoughts and acts of Americans can they remain symbols of a power that can move the world. That power is our faith in human liberty. That faith is immortal, but it is not invin- cible. It has sometimes been abandoned, it has been betrayed, it has been beaten to earth again and again, and although it has never been killed, it has been reduced to impotence for centuries at a time. It is far older than our Republic. The motto on our Liberty Bell, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof," is from the book of Leviticus, which is sup- posed to have been written nearly 1,500 years before Christ. In the 35 centuries since that date, the love of liberty has never died, but liberty itself has been lost again and again. We find it hard to believe that liberty could ever be lost in this country. But it can be lost, and it will be, if the time ever comes when these documents are regarded not as the supreme expression of our pro- found belief, but merely as curiosities in glass cases. Today, the ideals which these three docu- ments express are having to struggle for survival throughout the world. When we sealed the Declaration and the Constitution in the Library of Congress, almost a year and a half ago, I had something to say about the threat of totalitarianism and communism. That threat still menaces freedom. The struggle against communism is just as crucial, just as demanding, as it was then. We are uniting the strength of free men against this threat. We are resisting Com- munist aggression and we will continue to resist the Communist threat with all our will and with all our strength. But the idea of freedom is in danger from others as well as the Communists. There are some who hate communism, but, who, at the same time, are unwilling to acknowledge the ideals of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. They are the people who believe it is too dangerous to proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants. What these people really believe is that the Preamble ought to be changed from "We, the people" to read, "Some of us — some of the people of the United States, but not in- cluding those we disapprove of or dis- agree with — do ordain and establish this IO78 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 15 [347] Constitution." Whether they know it or not, these people are enclosing the spirit as well as the letter of the original Constitution in a glass case, sealed off from the living nation. They are turning it into a mummy, as dead as some old Pharaoh of Egypt, and in doing that they are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of democracy. The first article of the Bill of Rights pro- vides that Congress shall make no law re- specting freedom of worship or abridging freedom of opinion. There are some among us who seem to feel that this provision goes too far, even for the purpose of preventing tyranny over the mind of man. Of course, there are dangers in religious freedom and freedom of opinion. But to deny these rights is worse than dangerous, it is abso- lutely fatal to liberty. The external threat to liberty should not drive us into suppress- ing liberty at home. Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination. All freedom-loving nations, not the United States alone, are facing a stern challenge from the Communist tyranny. In the circum- stances, alarm is justified. The man who isn't alarmed simply doesn't understand the situation — or he is crazy. But alarm is one thing, and hysteria is another. Hysteria im- pels people to destroy the very thing they are struggling to preserve. Invasion and conquest by Communist armies would be a horror beyond our capac- ity to imagine. But invasion and conquest by Communist ideas of right and wrong would be just as bad. For us to embrace the methods and morals of communism in order to defeat Communist aggression would be a moral disaster worse than any physical catastrophe. If that should come to pass, then the Constitution and the Declaration would be utterly dead and what we are doing today would be the gloomiest burial in the history of the world. But I do not believe it is going to come to pass. On the contrary, I believe that this ceremony here today marks a new dedica- tion to the ideals of liberty. Since 1789 we have learned much about controlling the physical world around us. In 1789 they had nothing to compare with our modern methods of preserving priceless documents. They did not know how to place these sheets under conditions that, left undisturbed, may keep them intact and legible for a thousand years. Perhaps our progress in learning the art of government has been less spectacular, but I, for one, believe that it has been no less certain. I believe the great experiment that we call the United States of America has taught much to mankind. We know more than our forefathers did about the mainte- nance of popular liberty. Hence it should be easier, not harder, for us to preserve the spirit of the Republic, not in a marble shrine, but in human hearts. We have the knowl- edge. The question is, have we the will to apply that knowledge ? Whether we will preserve and extend popular liberty is a very serious question, but, after all, it is a very old question. The men who signed the Declaration faced it. So did those who wrote the Constitution. But each succeeding generation has faced it, and so far each succeeding generation has an- swered it in the affirmative. I am sure that our generation will give the same affirmative answer. So I confidently predict that what we are doing today is placing before the eyes of many generations to come the symbols of a living faith. And, like the sight of the flag "in the dawn's early light," the sight of these symbols will lift up their hearts, so they will go out of this building helped and strength- ened and inspired. note: The President spoke at 10:30 a.m. in the Ex- hibition Hall at the National Archives. In his open- ing remarks he referred to Fred M. Vinson, Chief Justice of the United States, Jess Larson, Administra- tor of General Services, Luther Harris Evans, Librarian of Congress, and Wayne C. Grover, Ar- chivist of the United States. 1079 [348] Dec. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents 348 Letter to Michael V. DiSalle on His Appointment as Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency. December 16, 1952 Dear Mr, DiSalle: I appreciate greatly your willingness' to sacrifice your time and personal interest to undertake for the remaining days of my ad- ministration the position of Administrator of the Economic Stabilization Agency. We both feel strongly that the stabilization program is a vital part of our defense mobili- zation and our national security under the present economic conditions in which that program must operate. Your service in this field, in which you have both outstanding experience and a record of high accomplish- ment, will greatly assist in the maintenance of a strong stabilization program which can be turned over to the new administration as a functioning and effective operation. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Michael V. DiSalle, Washington, D.C.] note: On the same day the White House released the exchange of correspondence with Roger L. Put- nam, in which the President accepted his resignation as Administrator o£ the Economic Stabilization Agency. Mr. DiSalle was sworn in as Administrator on .December 22. 349 Address Before the Alumni Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. December i65 1952 Mr, President of the Association, Comman- dant of the College, and gentlemen: I am very, very pleased indeed to be able to meet with you here today. I sincerely wish I could stay for lunch but, you see, they have set this table so there is no place for me, and I have to get back and keep an ap- pointment at the White House. I am sorry. I'll take a raincheck, though, because after January the 20th I am going to need some place to eat. The faculty and students of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces are doing a most important job — one that is altogether too little known and too little appreciated. They are studying the relationship between a strong national defense and a healthy econ- omy. Few subjects are more important than that. In the painful, long-drawn-out strug- gle for peace we must constantly have power- ful military defenses, backed by steadily growing economic strength. You who are graduates of the Industrial College have learned a great deal about what it takes to accomplish this purpose. I was very glad to find that the graduates of the Industrial College have joined together in an Alumni Association, to help you keep in touch with one another, and to help you keep up with new ideas in the field of economic mobilization. It is most important for the sake of our country that each one of you, after you leave the Industrial College, keep abreast of what is going on in this field. There are too few people in this country who understand what is involved in mobilizing the Nation's re- sources to produce defense equipment on a limited scale, as at present, and to be pre- pared at any time to swing into full-scale wartime production. Our country is going to be engaged for many years in the dangerous and difficult task of achieving a workable peace. All through that time, we are going to have to be in a state of partial mobilization, of greater or less degree, depending on the particular circumstances at any given time. In this situation, we will need to depend heavily on people like yourselves who have been privi- 1080 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 16 [349] leged to study the problem of economic mobilization thoroughly. I have been through two mobilizations, one for World War II, and this one for this unpleasantness in which we are now. In the World War II one, I was in the Senate and was in charge of the committee which was called the Committee To Investigate the National Defense Program. It was the ob- jective of that committee to help win the war. I was in constant touch with the President and with General Marshall, and I never made a move without those two gentle- men knowing exactly what I was going to do. I don't know what I would have given, had I been blessed with a committee like that under the circumstances. We will also need the help of the thou- sands of students throughout the country who have taken the short courses on eco- nomic mobilization given by the faculty of the Industrial College. I understand that over 17,000 students have taken these courses. And I certainly was glad to hear it. I un- derstand also that over 1,500 students have completed the correspondence course, and another 2,300 are now enrolled. All this educational work needs to go ahead very rapidly if our country is to make the proper economic and military decisions and adjust- ments that will be needed to carry forward our work for peace. We have just gone through a period of economic mobilization that has demon- strated some of the things that can be done in our amazingly productive and dy- namic country. In the first months after the Communist invasion of Korea, when nobody could be sure how close we might be to a new world war, we launched what we called the defense mobilization program. We laid out a program of rearmament on a scale beyond that which any free nation had ever accomplished in any period short of an all-out war. We decided to add 2 mil- lion men and women to our Armed Forces, and to buy something like $150 billion worth of military supplies and equipment, over a period of 3 or 4 years. We decided to carry out, in addition to the military production effort, a vast pro- gram of expansion of our basic industries, all across the economy. And we wanted to do all this with as little interruption as possible in the normal and healthy growth of the standard of living of the country. In recent years, we have become used to the fact that our economy is enormously productive. Yet, even so, this was a chal- lenging program. We planned to build up our expenditures for security purposes until they took 15 to 20 percent of the entire out- put of the country. We wanted to increase our total national production as rapidly as we could, so that the greater part of the security program could be taken care of by the additional production, rather than by diverting production from civilian to mili- tary purposes. This meant new sources of materials, new plants, additional workers, more skills. To appreciate the full scope of this under- taking, you have to remember that a great part of the military production program was made up of new items — models of planes and tanks and electronic equipment which had not yet been proven to be feasible for production. Some of the things that were scheduled for production, you can honestly say, had not yet quite been invented. By now, we are well along on our defense mobilization program. Our production of military hard goods has risen to seven times what it was at the time of the Korean in- vasion. Even so, the expansion has not been quite as rapid as we had hoped. The pro- curement officers and their contractors turned out to be over-optimistic in predicting how fast they could bring the new models of equipment into production. While falling behind our schedules may sometimes prove embarrassing, I believe it is always wise to set high targets. They act as a spur to everyone concerned, and I think 1081 [349] Dec- l6 Public Papers of the Presidents you accomplish more that way in the long run than if you never set out to do anything more than is apparently feasible. Now there's an old city planner in Chi- cago named D. H. Burnham. He had a building of his own there, and his office is on the top floor of that building, and he had a fireplace at the end of it. And he had a motto over it which said: "Make no little plans. You can always alter great plans, but you can't expand little ones." And that is true, in this instance, just the same. It is more important to get the job done than to worry about who is going to be embarrassed if we fall short of our targets. Because military production has not been as rapid as expected, we have done even bet- ter than we expected on the civilian side. Cuts in production of consumer hard goods have been reasonably mild and not of long duration. There have been almost no actual shortages of consumer goods. I would hazard a guess that none of you here found at any time since the emergency that there was anything you couldn't buy on the market. During this period, we expanded our basic industrial capacity at a rate greater than at any time in history — a rate of $27 billion a year. The gross national product, after ad- justing for price changes, has gone up by $45 billion, or 15 percent. The product for 1952 will be $344 billion — a fantastic figure. And you can measure it by any set of dollars you want to, and it is still the greatest in the history of the world. Over a period of 3 or 4 years, beginning with 1950, we will have increased our alumi- num capacity by 100 percent, our electric power capacity by 50 percent, and even our steel industry by 20 percent. We have twice as many aircraft plants in production as at the time of Korea, and twice as many engine plants. In other words, we are much stronger, much more ready — more nearly ready for anything we may have to face than we were just 2 short years ago. I do not mean to imply that the defense mobilization program is over — far from it. We have just about completed the buildup of our munitions industries, but there is still over $100 billion in actual production to turn out. A lot of our newest models of equip- ment— guided missiles, for example, and supersonic aircraft — are still to be perfected for volume production. One aspect of the program of special in- terest to you in this audience is just well underway. That is the program of figuring out all the requirements for industrial capac- ity that we would need in an all-out war, and preparing fully in advance to meet these requirements. What we call the mobiliza- tion base has got to be complete next time if and when war starts, because we simply won't have time to build it after war begins. If we had to hold up production for 2 or 3 years while we built long-lead-time machine tools, for example, that might very well be fatal — and undoubtedly it would cause the loss of the war. The specialized military production plants, and the stockpiles of mate- rials, have to be ready. And once ready, they have to be kept ready. I emphasize that. Once they are ready, they must be kept ready. This mobilization base job — planning, provision, and maintenance — will be one of the big jobs facing the new administration. It will be up to you graduates of the Indus- trial College to supply a great deal of the leadership and assistance the new President will need in this immensely complex task — just as you have supplied leadership and as- sistance in the defense mobilization program thus far. We have been able to accomplish this tremendous defense buildup because of the dynamic nature of the American economy. We have an expanding economy — one that has grown steadily stronger year by year. No one can say what the limits are — if, in fact, there are any limits — to our growth and to our production capacity. This may sound surprising to you because, a little while back, there was so much talk about the sad state of our economy. Some 1082 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 16 [349] of you may recall how often it was said that this defense program of ours was just too big for the Nation to carry. You heard phrases like "national bankruptcy," "economic col- lapse," "the crushing tax burden," and so on. I have never been able to figure out what measuring rod these doleful people use when they conclude we are on the road to ruin. It can't be the national income, because that was never higher — $290 billion for this year. It can't be the national debt, because our na- tional income has been growing faster than our national debt. It can't be the level of investment, because investment is at a record rate. It can't be the number of people out of work, because unemployment is almost as low as it can get. There are more than 63 million people at work, and 1,400,000 out of work, and that 1,400,000 are being hunted up every day by people who need help. I say to you very seriously that our present defense mobilization program does not even approach the limit of what our country could do if it had to. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of talk about the country's so-called inability to continue a defense program of the magni- tude of this one. This is very dangerous talk, because it could conceivably lead the country to a decision to cut back the defense program to a point below the minimum needs of our national security. This would happen at a time when — as everybody in this audience knows — we are confronted by a potential enemy that is very hostile and very powerful. And that potential enemy, you can be sure, is putting a far greater pro- portion of his national product into the building of military strength, year after year, than we are. It is one of the facts of life, which every President has to face, that the right course of action is not always the popular course. Americans in the past few years have accom- plished great things — great because they were right and necessary, and because they made a tremendous difference to the pros- pects for peace and freedom. The diversion of our resources to build up our military strength, the assistance in the recovery and protection of other free nations, our firm stand in Korea — these were all necessary. But they meant heavy expenditures and higher taxes, which are unpleasant. And they meant loss of life. The danger is always that the American people will be too conscious of their sacrifices and the unpleasantness, but not too conscious enough of the necessity and the greatness, of their course of action. It is necessary that people understand that while taxes are un- pleasant, it is better to pay taxes to prevent a war than to pay taxes to pay for one. Life cannot be safe or pleasant when a large part of the world is controlled by Communist tyranny. Life cannot be comfortable or without risk when these powerful forces have vowed an unending hostility to every- thing that makes up the tradition of human freedom. As I end my more than 7 years as Presi- dent, I do so with pride that the Nation dur- ing those years did not shrink back from fac- ing hard realities. The Nation chose a course of strength, and not of weakness. It chose a course of leadership in the worldwide struggle against communism, not a course of withdrawal. It chose to bear all the financial burden that had to be borne, not to cut corners for the sake of slightly lower taxes, and a little more comfort in our daily living. And as a result, there are hundreds of millions of people in the world today who are living in freedom instead of in slavery; there are ready military forces sufficient to give pause to any potential aggressor; there are governments, and associations of govern- ments, throughout the free world, working hard for security and progress and freedom; and there is a functioning world organiza- tion which, with all its deficiencies, is the greatest hope man has ever known for a world of international law and order. I think our people know these things, and want to continue the basic course we have been following. I think they are wise enough to know the difference between true 1083 [349] Dec. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents economy and false economy. They are wise enough to know that anything that may be spent to prevent a new world war is bound to be far less than would be spent to fight one. This is true in money. It is true in lives. And the people are also wise enough to know that we can afford to pay the cost of whatever is necessary to prevent a new world war. We can afford to complete our defense buildup. We can afford the cost of main- taining our mobilization base in readiness for any emergency. We can afford the cost of aiding our allies. We can afford these things as long as we maintain our productive, fully- employed, expanding economy. Our re- sources, though we measure them in dollars, are not really dollars. They are our farms, our factories, our great producing organiza- tions, and the skills of our people. These resources can be used in whatever way the great emergency of our time demands. We have the resources to do whatever is neces- sary to protect and preserve our democracy and our freedom. And we have shown, over the past years, that we also have the cour- age and the will to do just that. note: The President spoke at 12:04 p.m. at Fort Lesley J. McNair in Washington. In his opening remarks he referred to Kennedy Watkins, president of the Alumni Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and Rear Adm. W. McL. Hague, USN, commandant of the College. 350 Remarks to the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers. December 17, 1952 I APPRECIATE this most highly. I sincerely hope that I deserve it. It is quite an honor to receive a citation such as this. It is usually the business of the President to give citations, not to receive them. And I appreciate this more highly, for the simple reason that I will be out of a job after the 20th day of January, and things like this won't come very often. It certainly is kind and thoughtful of you to come down and bring it to me, and I appreciate it. note: The President spoke at 11:08 a.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House. The association presented to the President its 1952 Founders' Award. The citation read, in part, "To the Honorable Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America. In recognition of his keen sense of appreciation of the problems in- volved in the immigration and nationality policy of the United States, his forthrightness in dealing with them, and his affirmative steps to ease the hazards to the nobility and dignity of individuals regardless of race, color, creed or national origin." 351 Remarks at the Wright Memorial Dinner of the Aero Club of Washington. December 17, 1952 Mr, Chairman: I am very happy to be able to participate in this occasion. In its first half-century, aviation has had an astonishing career. It is really hard for the human mind to accept some of the ac- complishments in this field. This has always been true. As I have said many a time before, I wish I could see the development of the next half- century. I won't quite be able to reach that far, but I am going to go as far as I can. It has been said in 1840, Jimmy, that the Com- missioner of Patents went before a Senate committee and suggested that the Patent Office be closed because there was nothing more to be invented — in 1840. Forty-nine years ago it was hard to get peo- ple to believe that the Wright brothers had actually flown an airplane at all. And today 1084 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 17 [351] we can hardly believe that a man will be able to travel so fast from Washington to San Francisco that he will get to San Francisco earlier than he took off from Washington! But I am sure Jimmy Doolittle knows what he is talking about and it will not be very long before we see something like that happen. Just the other day, a transport plane crossed the international dateline and got to Seattle 40 minutes before it left Tokyo. It is a fine thing for you to get together at a dinner like this to honor people who have contributed to our advances in the field of aviation. I have had the privilege of presenting some of these trophies a number of times, and I appreciate that privilege very much. Last year, I suggested that the winner of the Collier Trophy ought to receive a small replica of the trophy that he could keep in his own possession permanently. I am told that Mr. Winger of Collier's magazine has arranged for this to be done. I didn't mean to get Mr. Winger into trouble, but I still think it is a good idea and I am glad to know that it is being carried out. Now I would like to say another word about Jimmy Doolittle. He is an oldtimer in this business, of course, and his claim to fame rests upon a great many outstanding accomplishments. At this time, I would like to thank him again for the job he did for me last winter on the problem of airport location and use. You will remember that a number of un- fortunate accidents had raised that problem in a very acute form. So I appointed a com- mission, headed by General Doolittle, to look into the matter and make recommenda- tions to me. That commission got right to work and made a thorough study, and sub- mitted to me a report entitled "The Airport and Its Neighbors." It is a good report. It gives us some guide- lines for providing airports for the needs of our national economy and our national de- fense, and at the same time for protecting the safety and peace of mind of the people who live near the airports. Since that report was issued, aviation has had a fine safety record. So far, this year has been the safest in aviation history. The credit for that is shared by a great many peo- ple, including our Civil Aeronautics Ad- ministration, under the leadership of Charlie Home. And I am sure that the interest and understanding created by the Doolittle report has also had something to do with it. I have been very much interested in avia- tion ever since I came to Washington as a Member of the United States Senate. In the Senate, I was a member of two committees that had jurisdiction over aviation matters, the Committee on Interstate Commerce and the Committee on Military Affairs. I remember very well when the Congress passed the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. I was in charge of the subcommittee that held hearings on the bill and reported it to the Senate. This has proved to be an excellent law. It has worked remarkably well, espe- cially when you consider the phenomenal growth of the aviation industry and the re- markable technological advances that have been made since it was passed. I have been particularly interested in these matters during my term as President. The President, you know, has a special relation- ship with the Civil Aeronautics Board that is different from his relationship with other regulatory commissions. In the case of inter- national and overseas air transportation, the actions of the Civil Aeronautics Board on route certificates and things of that kind must be approved by the President. The reason for this, of course, is because inter- national air routes have a direct and impor- tant bearing upon our foreign relations and our national defense. One of the results of this system is that it gives the President a good many hot pota- toes to handle — but the President gets a lot of hot potatoes from every direction anyhow, and a man who can't handle them has no business in that job. That makes me think of a saying that I used to hear from my old friend and colleague on the Jackson County Court. He said, "Harry, if you can't stand 55-672—66 72 1085 [351 ] Dec. 17 Public Papers of the Presidents the heat you better get out of the kitchen." I'll say that is absolutely true. Considering the criticism of some of the decisions I have made on these matters, I have been pleasandy surprised from time to time to learn that international aviation is not in a completely ruinous condition. The airlines, I am told, are still flying back and forth from this country to the others, and actually doing a great deal of business. When Don Nyrop resigned as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, he brought me a book containing the history of the Presidential decisions in airline cases and the growth of international aviation since I became President. I will have to confess to you that the record is even better than I thought it was going to be. This report showed, for instance, that during the period from April 12, 1945 — that's when I took office as President — to September 30, 1952, the route mileage of the United States inter- national and overseas carriers increased from 75,000 miles to 240,000; revenue plane miles of these carriers increased from 26 million to 103 million; and total operating revenues increased from $50 million to $300 million — that is an increase of 500 percent over 7 years. So I didn't put them out of business, after all. Now I think that is a pretty remarkable record. The American aviation industry, of course, is responsible for making the record and is entided to the credit. And this program means a lot to the strength and security of the United States. Our progress in civil aviation is indeed impressive, but the most starding technical advances in aviation have, as we all know, been made in the military field. We take great satisfaction in these tech- nical advances. We are honoring here tonight some of the men whose work is making those advances possible. But our satisfaction arises from the fact that only by such advances can we build up the power which is necessary to keep aggression and conquest from plunging the world into a third world war. We are throwing our energies into military aviation because we want to prevent war. We are developing new techniques and new weapons in the hope that they will never have to be used. Our aim is peace: we must never, never forget that. But we cannot have peace by being weak, or by falling behind in the technical race. We can have peace only if we have strength — strength so great that would-be aggressors will give up their de- signs of conquest, and agree to live peace- ably in the world with their neighbors, and abide by the principles of the United Nations. That is what we are all working for, and if we go forward, and have faith, and keep calm and patient, I am confident that we will reach that goal. note: The President spoke at 9:50 p.m. at the Statler Hotel in Washington. His opening words "Mr. Chairman" referred to Edward E. Slattery, Jr., president of the Aero Club of Washington. He also referred to Albert E. Winger, president and director of Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. Following his remarks the President presented three aviation awards. Lt. Gen. James H. Doolittle, an official of the Shell Oil Company, received the Wright Memorial Trophy for his contribution to the civilian aviation industry. John Stack, assistant director of the Langley Aeronautical Laboratory, accepted on behalf of his associates the Collier Trophy, awarded in recognition of his group's work in developing a wind tunnel to test supersonic aircraft. Maj. Gen. Lucas V. Beau, commander of the Civil Air Patrol, accepted the Brewer Trophy, which cited the Patrol's contribution to the edu- cation of youth in aviation matters. For the President's letter to Donald W. Nyrop, Chairman, Air Transport Coordinating Committee, transmitting the report of the President's Airport Commission, see Item 155. On October 15, the White House released the text of the exchange of correspondence in which the President accepted the resignation of Donald W. Nyrop as Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board. 1086 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 18 [353] 352 Statement by the President on the Report of the Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. December 18, 1952 I HAVE today received the summary report and recommendations of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. This report is the product of 12 months of intensive work by the 15 professional and lay members of the Commission. When I appointed this Commission on December 29, 195 1, I stated that its major task was to make a critical study of our total health requirements, both immediate and long-term, and to recommend courses of action to meet these needs. The Commis- sion has done exactly that, and this impres- sive report is evidence of the energy and intelligence with which it went about its work. On many occasions I have called attention to the fact that sincere efforts to bring better health to all our people have been retarded by partisan accusations. It is my belief that the members of this Commission, by setting aside any preconceived ideas they may have had in this field and by seeking only the basic facts, have opened the way to a fresh and constructive approach in meeting the health needs of the Nation. I am delighted to learn that with only comparatively minor exceptions the commissioners, who represent the divergent points of view of all segments of our society, are unanimous in their findings. I shall study this report of the Commission with great interest. This material will, I am sure, prove invaluable in furthering posi- tive efforts toward maintaining and improv- ing our people's health. I, of course, cannot say what the next administration will do in carrying on the work we have undertaken in the health field. It is my hope that careful considera- tion will be given to the Commission's find- ings and recommendations. This report deserves the attention of every American. It would be most unfortunate if the same emotionalism which has prevented open- minded study of major health proposals ad- vanced during the past few years were to hinder the proper evaluation which this report merits. In the interest of our national well-being, men of good will must continue the work of protecting and improving the health of all our people. The members and the staff of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation merit the gratitude of this country for their contribution to this most worthy cause. note: The Commission's report, entitled "Building America's Health," was printed in five volumes: Vol- ume I, "Findings and Recommendations" (80 pp.), Volume II, "America's Health Status, Needs and Resources" (320 pp.), Volume III, "America's Health Status, Needs and Resources; a Statistical Index" (299 pp.) » Volume IV, "Financing a Health Program for America" (363 pp.), and Volume V, "The People Speak; Excerpts from Regional Pub- lic Hearings on Health" (521 pp.). Volume I, which the President received on that day, was published in 1952, and the remaining four vol- umes were published in 1953, by the Government Printing Office. For the President's statement upon establishing the Commission on the Health Needs of the Na- tion, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 307. For the President's message to Congress trans- mitting the first volume, see Item 369. 353 The President's News Conference of December 18, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have no special announcements to make. I made the only announcement I had today, already. So if you want to ask me questions, I will try to answer them. [1.] Q. Mr. President, what announce- 1087 [353] Dec. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents ment did you refer to? the president. The health report.1 [2.] Q. I just wondered if you have any reaction to the meeting of General Mac- Arthur and General Eisenhower and Mr. Dulles? the president. No, I haven't. I ex- pressed my opinion last week. I have noth- ing to add to it, and nothing to take back. [3.] Q. Mr. President, I have got a query about a man named General Larsen 2 who, as the president of the National Association of State Civil Defense Directors, saw General Eisenhower today; and when he came out he criticized the handling of civilian defense from top to bottom, and said only lip serv- ice had been given. Would you care to comment? the president. Yes. I wonder if the gentleman has examined the requests by the Budget, and the appropriations that finally came out? If I remember correctly, we asked for some 400-odd million in the last budget, and we got less than 30 million — I think 29 million and something. And if the gentleman will go down and work with the Congress as hard as he is working in the press right there, we might have an im- proved situation. [4.] Q. Mr. President, to make sure I understand that earlier remark, what you said last week about General Eisenhower's trip to Korea3 being the president. I said I had nothing to add to it and nothing to take away from it. That's all the comment I made. Q. Acting a demagog? the president. I said — I didn't men- tion— I didn't mention that at all. I said I had said what I had to say last week, and had nothing to add to it and nothing to take away from it. That's all I said. Q. Mr. President, your opinion is still the same then? 1See Item 352. 2Lt. Gen. Henry Larsen. 3 See Item 345 [4]. the president. Oh, yes. My opinion hasn't changed. [5.] Q. Mr. President, have you received any communication direcdy or indirectly from either General MacArthur or General Eisenhower? the president. No, I haven't, Q. Mr. President, do you expect General Eisenhower to report to you on his trip to Korea? the president. I hadn't anticipated that he would. Q. You are not going to request it, sir? the president. No, I had a full, fair re- port on it from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,4 as it should be done. [6.] Q. Anything more you can tell us about your plans, Mr. President? the president. No. I wish I could. When I get to the point where I can give you the inside dope on the plans, I will give them to you. I have had so much to do that I haven't had a chance to make any arrangements. [7.] Q. Mr. President, do you expect, sir, to address the Congress before the end of your term? the president. I haven't made up my mind yet. I will send three messages to Congress, but I don't know whether I will go down in person or not. [8.] Q. Mr. President, could you say whether General Bradley suggested any new plan or proposal the president. Well, I never have been in the habit of commenting on the Korean situation in the press conference, and I don't want to start now. Q. I know that. I just want to know whether plans will still run in the old chan- nels, or something new the president. Well, I think events will show that situation up all right. [9.] Q. Mr. President, I apologize — I 4 General of the Army Omar N. Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 1088 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 18 [353] didn't hear Mr. Wilson's question and your answer? Q. I asked merely if he planned to ad- dress Congress in person before the end of his term. the president. I told him I hadn't made up my mind. Q. You will do that on your State of the Union Message ? the president. Well, I haven't made up my mind yet. I may, and I may not. Q. Mr. President, what I was trying to clear up, as I understand it, the State of the Union is not necessarily required by law, is it? That is customary, but not neces- sary the president. Well, if you will read the Constitution, it says the President shall from time to time inform the Congress on the "State of the Union." It has been custom- ary to do that at the opening of every Con- gress each year. Q. You will have your usual three messages ? the president. That's right. Q. Whether you deliver the State of the Union in person or not? the president. That's correct. Q. Is this correct the president. As to whether I will go down in person or not. Q. There is a fourth one? the president. No. Q. Haven't you always gone in person since you have been President? the president. Yes, I think I have gone nearly every time. I don't remember hav- ing missed any State of the Union Messages. Q. Could you say why this question arises now, if you do depart from custom ? the president. Well, I may be able to tell them everything without having to go down there and bore them a little bit. You see, it will be a new Congress, and they will be busy organizing. They won't be so much interested in the President that is going out as they will in the one that is coming in. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, the State of the Union Message, and the Budget — what's the other message? the president. Economic. They come in that order: State of the Union, Budget, and Economic.5 Q. I assume work is already underway, on at least a couple of them? the president. It's already underway on all of them. They will be ready in ample time to be presented by the 20th of January. [10.] Q. I don't want to crowd anybody out. I want to suggest to you before we leave — next Thursday will be Christmas — and we want to wish you a Merry Christ- the president. Does everybody want to have a press conference on Christmas Day? [Laughter] [n.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us in an informal sort of way how the country looks to you as you prepare to turn the reins over? the president. I think that that will be covered amply and thoroughly in the Mes- sage on the State of the Union, and I would rather not do it at a press conference. [12.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision of what to do about John Carter Vincent? 6 the president. I am not familiar enough with the case to make any comment on it. [13.] Q. Mr. President, do you have any comment on Commerce Secretary Sawyer's recommendation that economic aid to Europe be ended? the president. No comment. Wait and read my message on that subject. It will be out pretty soon. It will be in the Budget. [14.] Q. Mr. President, two of the Washington newspapers have commented editorially on the Vincent matter and have been very critical of the idea, I believe, in the way it was put, of requesting the removal of someone who "might" be disloyal. How do you feel about that, sir? 5 See Items 366, 367, 376. 8 See Item 362. I089 [353] Dec. 18 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. Well, I can't comment on that, because I haven't any evidence on which to comment; and I would rather not com- ment at this time. At the right time I will comment on it, I think. Q. Mr. President, do you plan to confer with Secretary Acheson on the Vincent mat- ter when he returns? the president. The matter automati- cally goes to the head of the Department. If Secretary Acheson wants to confer with me on it, why it's all right. Q. As I remember, the State Department statement afterwards said that the Secre- tary planned to discuss it with you. the president. It's perfecdy all right with me. I haven't had any conversation with him on the subject. [15.] Q. Will you follow tradition and ride down the Avenue with the new Presi- dent? the president. Of course. You see, he is riding down the Avenue with me, I am the President until he is sworn in. [Laugh- ter] Q. I'm glad I asked you, Mr. President. the president. You see, I am the Presi- dent until the oath is taken down there on the platform. There was a time in 1948 when there wasn't any President in office. His term was about to expire, and they waited and waited and waited for a long time before they swore me in; but it hap- pened to be that I was the President, so it made no difference. Q. Are you going to drive back down the Avenue with him, then, after the inauguration? the president. No. He will be the President, and I will be a private citizen. [16.] Q. Mr. President, Commissioner "Jiggs" Donohue7 said the other day that the new President would have the power to end segregation in the Capital just by issuing an Executive order. I wonder if the present President has that power? the president. I don't know. I can't answer the question. Q. Some question about that in the Su- preme Court the president. I say I don't know. I can't answer the question. You can be sure that if I thought I had the power, it would have been done a long time ago. Q. I think that would be about all, unless you have something to add, sir? the president. No, I have nothing to add. I hope you all have a Merry Christmas. Voices: Same to you, Mr. President. the president. And if you want to have a press conference on Christmas Day, I'll have it for you ! [Laughter] note: President Truman's three hundred and twenty- first news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Build- ing at 4 p.m. on Thursday, December 18, 1952. 7 F. Joseph Donohue, Commissioner of the District of Columbia. 354 Address at the National War College. December 19, 1952 General Craig and gentlemen: You men are engaged in one of the most important studies that Americans can engage in today. You are studying our national policy in its broadest sense. Our national policy is not simply our foreign policy or our military policy or our domestic policy. It is a combination of all three. The international domestic policies which a nation follows are the foundations of its foreign policy. Unless the domestic policy is sound, you can't have a foreign policy; and its military policy also is based on the soundness of the domestic policy. What we can do and ought to do abroad depends upon the kind of nation we are at home. We are, above all else, a peaceful nation, and what we want most in the world today is peace, a just and lasting peace, a peace that will release the constructive and creative 1090 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 19 [354] energies of mankind, and increase the hap- piness of men and women everywhere. Our national policy, the policy you are studying, in all its aspects, is simply a policy designed to reach that objective. It is a policy for world peace. You who are privileged to study here have an opportunity that is available nowhere else in this great country of ours. You are given facts that cannot be generally made public. You can look at the problems con- fronting the United States in the world today clearly, steadily, and as a whole. I am sure you appreciate this opportunity, and under- stand how important this background will be in the positions of high responsibility you will occupy when you leave here. I want to talk to you today about this policy for peace and what our country has been doing to put it into effect since the end of World War II. There has never been a greater need than there is now to think about these matters clearly and comprehensively. We must try to do this with detachment and without partisan bias. The situation of the world is such that anything less than our clearest and wisest judgment may be disas- trous to our future. If we look back over what we have done since the end of World War II, I think we can say that we have been successful in laying the foundations for a future structure of peace. Things which were merely principles in 1945, and only blueprints in 1947 and 1948, have now become established real- ities— growing and living institutions. We have done a great deal and we have done it very rapidly in the past 7 years. Some of our policies have been successful and some have not, but by and large it can be said that we have created the basic frame- work that is necessary to resist aggression and to uphold the principles of the United Nations. Whether that structure will suc- ceed depends upon a number of factors, in- cluding the degree to which we give it mate- rial support. But the progress we have al- ready made gives us confidence that we can succeed. At the end of World War II, the people of the United States were anxious to return to peaceful concerns. We wanted to forget about the problems of national security and national defense. We were, indeed, too eager to do this, and, in our hasty demobiliza- tion, we impatiently threw away a great deal of what we needed. A little more than 7 years ago, in a speech which I made in New York on October 27, 1945, I pointed out that we needed to continue to have strong armed forces, and a universal military training program. I said that we needed these things in order to enforce the terms of the peace, to fulfill the military obligations which we were undertaking as a member of the United Nations, and to protect the United States and the Western Hemisphere. To many people these statements sounded like strange talk back in 1945. In those days few of us realized that we would need strong defenses and trained manpower. Some people still don't see why we have to have universal military training. But the intervening years have proved that this was the right position to take in 1945. A new danger was then beginning to ap- pear— a danger which has since become quite familiar. This was the refusal of one of our former allies to cooperate in the efforts of the free nations to build a world peace. That nation — that former ally — set out to expand its own power by taking advantage of the weariness and yearning for peace that were prevalent throughout the world in the chaotic aftermath of World War II. This threat was global. It was sustained and persistent. It included political sub- version, economic stratagems, and military and diplomatic pressure. It was aimed at all free nations — wherever weakness might appear — and most particularly at the nations in Europe and Asia bordering on the ter- ritory dominated by the Soviet Union. To meet this threat we had to devise new plans and programs. We had to develop measures that were new, that went beyond many of our tradi- 1091 [354] Dec. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents tions and experiences. I think that we have met this problem, and on the whole we have met it successfully. The American people did develop new measures to meet this post- war threat to freedom. These measures have by now become so familiar to us that many of us tend to forget what they are designed to do. Our first objective is to preserve peace in the world. Our determination to do that was very clearly stated, I think, in the same speech I made in October 1945, setting forth the principles that were to guide us in inter- national affairs. I said then that we do not seek for ourselves one inch of territory in any place in the world, but that we are prepared to use our military strength to fulfill our obligations as a member of the United Nations. Along with this, I stressed our conviction that it is essential that there be no territorial changes which are not in accord with the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned, and that no govern- ment be imposed on any nation by force by any foreign power. That was said in 1945. We recognized at that time that there were limitations on what this country could do to make that declaration effective. We knew we could not prevent subversion or conquest every- where in the world. But we engaged our- selves to stand firmly behind the United Nations, and to use our resources to make freedom secure for ourselves and for others. Our first problem was to help the free nations strengthen themselves as rapidly as possible. The war and its aftermath had seriously weakened them. Destruction, eco- nomic chaos, hunger, political turmoil, all appeared to open the way for Communist subversion. The human misery and con- fusion in Europe and Asia aroused Com- munist expectations of easy opportunities for expansion. The free nations had to have new internal strength before they could resist Communist pressure. In 1947 we moved to help the people of Greece. Their national independence was threatened by foreign intrigue, guerrilla war- fare, and military pressure. We gave them military and economic aid. Greece did not lose its independence. The elements that were trying to destroy that independence were defeated. The Greek people recovered, to stand beside the people of Turkey in defense of freedom and stability in the area of the eastern Mediter- ranean. Next, we moved to bolster the internal strength of the nations of Western Europe. By their own efforts alone they were unable to recover from the terrible economic devas- tation of the war. Communist imperialism, using political weapons, was moving rapidly to take over their governments. We set out to give to these peoples economic assistance, and a sense of hope and confidence in the future. Moving ahead another step in our program to keep the peace, we signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. This joined the free nations of the Atlantic area in a pact which was something much more than a traditional military alliance. It was a per- manent partnership in the task of maintain- ing and assuring the peace. It brought the countries of Western Europe into closer economic and military unity. These measures have, up to now, been successful. Never has the United States made a better investment in security. I want to repeat that. Never has the United States made a better investment in security. It has been said that we have poured money down a rathole when we helped the Euro- pean nations to recover. That is just as untrue as it is possible for any statement to be. The peoples of Western Europe did not succumb to panic and despair; they did not yield their freedom to internal subversion or to outside intimidation. The peoples of Western Europe are not in Communist hands today, and they are not going to be. The economies of these countries recovered, despite embittered efforts of the Communists to prevent it. Today, the military potential of these IO92 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 19 [354] Western European peoples is growing. This is of tremendous importance to the world. The men and machines of Western Europe are a key factor in preserving peace and free- dom. If they should fall under Communist control, the scales of world power would shift drastically in favor of Communist imperialism. You know, our productive capacity is 50 percent of the world's capacity. And West- ern Europe has 30 percent of the world's productive capacity. And the Soviet Union 20 percent. If the Soviets get Western Eu- rope, they will be on a 50-50 basis with us, and that is the objective of our foreign policy. Now, to prevent that from happening, we have also had to meet Communist efforts to gain control over the two great peoples on the western and the eastern borders of the Soviet Union: Germany and Japan. Here, too, we have been largely successful. That part of Germany not occupied by Communist forces — and it is the greater part — has been enabled to maintain its free- dom. We have helped it toward a position of full sovereign equality in the community of free nations. We hope that it will become an important part of the newly-emerging united Europe. On the other side of the world, the Com- munists have also been thwarted in seeking the political capture of Japan, with its in- dustries and its trained manpower. We have signed with the Government of Japan a fair and generous treaty of peace. We have shown our confidence in the Japanese people. Now, I want to call the attention of you gentlemen to something that has never before happened in the history of the world. For the first time, a victorious power — the great- est power in the history of the world — has helped its enemies to recover. It has not left its enemies to starve, or struggle, or maybe go into the Communist orbit. It has helped them to recover. And that is the reason we are reasonably safe in the world today. It has never been done before. Study your histories. Another step in carrying out our policy for peace was taken when we joined with other free countries in the Pacific area in a series of security arrangements. This whole policy of ours met its greatest test when the Communists attacked the Republic of Korea. That was the great challenge — that was the crisis that decided whether we meant what we said, or whether we were really determined to support the United Nations and the concept of interna- tional law and order. I believe the Communists were bent on testing the authority of the United Nations and the strength of the free countries, by force, sooner or later. If the test had not come in Korea, it would have come some- where else. But it came in Korea, and that was where we had to meet it and where we had to stop it. The Communist aim was to bring South Korea under Communist domination, to demoralize the resistance of the free nations to communism, and to prepare the way for attacks elsewhere. The Communists have failed to achieve this end. But our aim, which was to repel the attack, to support the Charter of the United Nations, and to pre- vent the piecemeal conquest of other free nations — that aim has been achieved. This conflict has taken tragic sacrifices. It has caused impatience and disagreements among us. But in spite of this, we have stood firm. By every possible means we have been trying to restore peace and security in Korea. The Communists have refused the oppor- tunity we offered for an honorable end to the fighting. The result is a terrible and a serious problem. But while we deal with this problem, let us not lose sight of how much we have already accomplished by the fighting in Korea. If the attack had been allowed to succeed, the United Nations would have been shat- tered, and all our hopes of building up a collective security system for the free na- tions would have been destroyed. If we had failed to meet the test there, the free IO93 [354] Dec. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents world today might well be in retreat before communism on a dozen other fronts. The foreign policy we have developed in these last 7 years is not a negative policy. It is not simply a design to resist communism. It is much more than that. It is a program of going forward, overcoming want and pov- erty, and enlarging freedom. Behind the shield of defensive alliances and military strength, it is our purpose to help people to improve their conditions of life — to create a world in which democracy and freedom can flourish. This is a part of our total policy which is uppermost in my concern. It is an affirmative, creative, and construc- tive policy. Through the point 4 program, through measures of economic development, we are moving to bring modern technological prog- ress within the reach of other peoples, so that they can help themselves to raise their standard of living. I sent the engineer for TVA to the Meso- potamia Valley and had him make a survey of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. And he came back and reported to me that if those rivers were in a condition to be used as the Tennessee River now is being used, that valley would support 20 million people in luxury; and we wouldn't have any Near Eastern problem, if that were the case. This kind of activity comes naturally to us. It is close to the helping-hand tradition of the American frontier. But today it has a new significance. For the majority of the people of the world live in what are called "underdeveloped areas." These people are determined to conquer poverty and disease and misery. We can show them how to do it. With patience and understanding, we can help them adapt the methods of modern science to their own needs. Our programs of technical cooperation, our information programs, our exchanges of books and exchanges of people, all are in- tended to broaden the horizons of freedom and progress in the world. This affects edu- cation, it affects news distribution, it affects farm management, it affects industrial man- agement. Furthermore, they are a vital weapon against Communist imperialism. They show that the genuine road to progress is the way to freedom. They show that the deeds of free men are better than the false promises of communism. In carrying out these steps I have been describing, we have experienced both suc- cesses and failures. In this great world struggle there have been some burdens we could not undertake because our resources are not unlimited. China was one of those. With all our material help, and that material help was very great, the Government of China was not able to save itself. Let no one think that this administra- tion underestimates the effects of the Com- munist victory in China. We know that the capture of the great Chinese people by a clique of ruthless Communist fanatics was a tragic loss to the cause of peace and progress in Asia and elsewhere. We hope it will not be an irrevocable loss. It is very easy now to look at some par- ticular part of the whole world problem and say we did the wrong thing there. But those who criticize past decisions rarely look at the entire balance sheet of our assets and commitments and tell us what things we should have dropped in order to do the things they think we should have done. They forget that our power is not unlimited and that we cannot commit ourselves everywhere. You know, it's easy enough for the Mon- day morning quarterback to say what the coach should have done, after the game is over. But when the decision is up before you — and on my desk I have a motto which says "The buck stops here" — the decision has to be made. That decision may be right. It may be wrong. If it is wrong, and it has been shown that it is wrong, I have no desire to cover it up. I admit it, and try to make another decision that will meet the situa- tion. And that is what any President of IO94 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 19 [354] the United States has to do. Just bear that in mind. I do believe, however, that we have suc- ceeded in the main purposes to which we have set ourselves and our resources. We have demonstrated to the Communists that their expansionist efforts will be checked. The sum total of the actions which we have taken, and which I have briefly de- scribed, has now brought us, I believe, to a situation in which it should become clear to the Soviet leaders that they cannot gain their objectives by the use of force. They know this country is becoming strong. They know the strength and unity of the free na- tions is mounting. They can gain nothing from war but catastrophe. And I want to say to you gentlemen that another world war with all the implications that it has, and with the terrible weapons which we have developed, would end civili- zation. We don't want that to come about. And I want you gentlemen to use every means at your command to prevent that terrible catastrophe from coming about. In recognizing our progress, we must not belittle the dangers that still lie ahead. The Soviet leaders have not abandoned their purposes. They are persistent and determined. Even if they turn away from outright aggression, they still hope to win. More and more I think they are placing their hopes of victory on factors in the free world which they think will work to their advan- tage. They are placing their hopes above all on the differences and disagreements among the free countries, particularly be- tween ourselves and the others. To this end they are conducting against the people of the United States the most shameless, cynical, and terrible campaign of vilification that has ever been conducted against an entire people anywhere. Some of our peanut politicians conducted that sort of campaign in the last election. We must not underrate the dangers this involves. Our great wealth and our responsibilities as a leading world power have led to much resentment and misunderstanding, even among other free and friendly peoples. The aid programs we have carried out, along with all the good they have done, have led to much oversensitiveness and to many unhealthy reactions. Giving aid is not easy, either for those who give or for those who receive. Those of you who know your history remember that Aristides, who straightened out Athens, gave Athens a wonderful govern- ment. Finally earned for himself the title of "The Just," and was banished for that very reason. He was standing by the pen in which they threw the shards when they voted to ostracize a man. And he asked one of the people who said he ought to be ostracized, why he did it. "Well," he said, "I am just damn tired of hearing Aristides called The Just'!" These difficulties are frequently exag- gerated, but we will be foolish to underrate their importance. They involve some seri- ous dangers. If we wish to proceed success- fully with our policy for peace, we must meet this present phase of the Communist chal- lenge, as we have met others in the past. We must make a real effort to overcome the things that tend to divide us from our friends and allies. If this is done — if we are able to preserve unity and confidence among the free na- tions— we need not be panicky today about the state of the world. We are not on the losing side. The world is not about to col- lapse around us. We have a clear and consistent policy for peace. It is not a perfect one. No course of action ever is. It needs constant improve- ment and reevaluation. It needs constant revision. But it has proven basically a sound and rugged policy, in line with the feelings of our people and the requirements of the situation. The future historians may recognize some mistakes. I think maybe they will find a lot of them, but I think they will find more IO95 [354] Dec 19 Public Papers of the Presidents good things than they will mistakes. But on balance, I believe they will say that never in history did a great nation respond so effectively and promptly to new and unac- customed problems as did this Nation in the past 7 years; and never was a greater or more enlightened effort expended for a nobler purpose — world peace. One of our greatest dangers today is the danger of impatience. It is the danger that we will sell ourselves short — that we will underrate our own accomplishments. It is the danger that we will break away from the best path, just because it is long and stony, and uphill and rough, and because there are times when we cannot see over the top of the hill. It is the danger that we will take hasty or erratic action, and thereby sacrifice the very real and impressive achievements already in our hands. What we need in this coming period is faith in ourselves, courage to do the difficult and distasteful things, consideration and forbearance for our allies, without whose confidence and help our purposes will not be accomplished. To guide us on this path will soon be the responsibility of new people. No statesmen have ever had a heavier responsibility than these men will have. Let us see that they are given the type of support they need to do their work. Let us tell them frankly when we think they are wrong. But let us support them wholeheartedly when they are right. Let us work with them for peace and freedom in the world, and for progress and security in our own country. If we do these things, I am sure we can continue to move forward, and with God's help, we will have a better and a safer world. note: The President spoke at 8:49 a.m. at Fort Lesley J. McNair to the combined classes and facul- ties of the National War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. In his opening words he referred to Lt. Gen. Howard A. Craig, USAF, commandant of the National War College. 355 Letter to the Chairman, National Security Resources Board, Concerning the Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission. December 22, 1952 Dear Mr. Gorrie: I want to thank the National Security Resources Board and the interested Govern- ment agencies for the work they have done in answer to my request for advice regarding actions deemed appropriate in implementing the recommendations of the President's Materials Policy Commission. This evalua- tion by the Board, together with the indi- vidual comments submitted by the agencies concerned with materials and energy policies and programs, represents an important step in marking out the future role of the Federal Government in this important field. The long-term trend toward scarcity and higher costs of materials for the Nation's rapidly expanding economy can be checked only through new and vigorous policies and actions. The American people, therefore, have an important stake in the development of sound programs in this area. For this reason I believe that the recent report of the Board should be made public at this time so that it may receive full consideration by all groups in the country — both public and private. The work which the National Security Resources Board and the interested Govern- ment agencies have done in following up the report of the President's Materials Pol- icy Commission should facilitate the orderly transfer of policy-making responsibilities in this area to the new Administration. Also this material should prove of significant help in the deliberations at the national confer- ence on materials policy which, I under- stand, will be convened in Washington early next year. IO96 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 24 [356] This Nation will meet the great chal- lenge of world leadership in the years ahead only if it has the vision and courage to adopt constructive programs for the expan- sion of our economy while strengthening our security. I am sure the report of the Presi- dent's Materials Policy Commission and the work undertaken by the Federal agencies with a view to its implementation will be counted as important contributions in attain- ing that basic objective. A copy of this letter is being sent to the head of each agency which participated with the National Security Resources Board in the development of your report. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Jack O. Gorrie, Chairman, National Security Resources Board, Washington, D.C.] note: The Board's report is entitled "The Objec- tives of United States Materials Resources Policy and Suggested Initial Steps in Their Accomplish- ment: A Report by the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board Based on the Report of the President's Materials Policy Commission and Federal Agency Comments Thereon" (Government Printing Office, 1952, 101 pp.)« See also Items 179, 191, 192. 356 Remarks Upon Lighting the National Community Christmas Tree. December 24, 1952 [ Broadcast nationally at 5:15 p.m. ] My fellow Americans: As we light this National Christmas tree tonight, here on the White House lawn — as all of us light our own Christmas trees in our own homes — we remember another night long ago. Then a Child was born in a stable. A star hovered over, drawing wise men from afar. Shepherds, in a field, heard angels singing: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That was the first Christmas and it was God's great gift to us. This is a wonderful story. Year after year it brings peace and tranquility to troubled hearts in a troubled world. And tonight the earth seems hushed, as we turn to the old, old story of how "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Tonight, our hearts turn first of all to our brave men and women in Korea. They are fighting and suffering and even dying that we may preserve the chance of peace in the world. The struggle there has been long and bitter. But it has a hopeful meaning. It has a hopeful meaning because it is the common struggle of many free nations which have joined together to seek a just and lasting peace. We know, all of us, that this is the only way we can bring about peace in the conditions of our time on this earth. Whether we shall succeed depends upon our patience and fortitude. We still have a long road ahead of us before we reach our goal. We must remain steadfast. And as we go about our business of trying to achieve peace in the world, let us remem- ber always to try to act and live in the spirit of the Prince of Peace. He bore in His heart no hate and no malice — nothing but love for all mankind. We should try as nearly as we can to follow His example. Our efforts to establish law and order in the world are not directed against any nation or any people. We seek only a universal peace, where all nations shall be free and all peoples shall enjoy their inalienable human rights. We believe that all men are truly the children of God. As we worship at this Christmastide, let us worship in this spirit. As we pray for our loved ones far from home — as we pray for our men and women in Korea, and all our service men and women wherever they are — let us also pray for our enemies. Let 1097 [356] Dec. 24 Public Papers of the Presidents us pray that the spirit of God shall enter their lives and prevail in their lands. Let us pray for a fulfillment of the brotherhood of man. Through Jesus Christ the world will yet be a better and a fairer place. This faith sustains us today as it has sustained mankind for centuries past. This is why the Christ- mas story, with the bright stars shining and the angels singing, moves us to wonder and stirs our hearts to praise. Now, my fellow countrymen, I wish for all of you a Christmas filled with the joy of the Holy Spirit, and many years of future happiness with the peace of God reigning upon this earth. 357 Letter to Stephen J. Spingarn on Ethics in Government. December 29, 1952 My dear Mr. Spingarn: I have read the documents on ethics in government which you sent me on December twelfth. You are performing a public service in calling attention to a fundamental principle that is in danger of being carelessly whittled away. No public function lies nearer the roots of government than that of a judge. Realizing this fact, our ancestors took un- usual precautions to keep our judges fair and unintimidated. To convict the innocent or to protect the guilty from conviction from corrupt or partisan or private motives, de- stroys confidence in government and makes government unworthy of confidence. The principles of judicial impartiality and its companion, judicial immunity from pres- sure and influence, have long been axiomatic in the system of justice entrusted to our courts. They are equally applicable to the many judicial functions that have come to be entrusted to independent commissions. Whether a case comes before court or com- mission, the public has a right to know that the decision will be made on the merits of the issue and not in response to any private inducements. In the relatively rare instances in which the power to enforce the law is subverted to private ends for a bribe, the public is justly shocked — although in condemning the bribe taker it sometimes neglects to condemn equally the bribe giver. But a few people who would not offer a judge money see no harm in trying to cajole him by influence or IO98 intimidate him by threats, express or implied. Many more people see no harm in using such tactics against quasi-judicial commissions. Attempts to control government decisions by pressure or influence are far more common than by bribery. Where they are successful, they pervert government to private ends in the same way. The evil of bribery lies not in the gain received by an official but in the destruction of justice and the undermining of government; the evil of influence or intimidation is the same. Of course, persons affected by government actions have every right to present fully the facts and the merits concerning the issues in- volved. It is often difficult to draw the line between a legitimate presentation on the merits and an unethical approach based on influence and intimidation. But we know that such a line does exist and that all too often the unethical approach is used by some business interests. The organized campaign of misrepresen- tation now being waged against the staff report on oil cartels prepared in your Com- mission is a good illustration of attempted coercion and intimidation. I think there can be no excuse, for example, for the vitu- perative attacks upon the motives and even the loyalty of those responsible for the report. Certainly, it does not contribute to the Na- tion's security for propaganda of that kind to be spread all over the world in an effort to discredit the Government of the United States. There is no simple answer to the problem Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 30 [358] of improper pressures brought to bear upon government officials. But it is clear that the answer must lie in part with the officials themselves. They must recognize these pres- sures for what they are and have the cour- age to stand against them. I am sure that the discussion you have provoked during these recent weeks will contribute greatly to that end and that much good will come of it. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Stephen J. Spingarn, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.] note: Mr. Spingarn's letter, dated December 12, was released with the President's reply. 358 Letter to Committee Chairmen on the Need for Continuing Aid to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. December 30, 1952 Dear Mr. Chairman: I have been informed that certain goods of primary strategic significance have been shipped from the United Kingdom, France, and Italy to various countries of the Soviet Bloc in fulfillment of long-standing obliga- tions. The total value of the shipments is $2.5 million. The commitments to deliver these goods were made before the effective date of the embargo provisions of the Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951 (the Battle Act), Public Law 213, 82nd Congress. But the actual shipments took place after that date. And they consisted of items which have been listed by the Administrator of the Act as items that should be embargoed to the Soviet Bloc in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Thus I have been faced with a grave deci- sion. Under Section 103(b) of the statute I am required either to terminate all military, economic, and financial assistance to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, or to direct that assistance be continued in spite of the shipments. The provisions of the Battle Act with re- spect to termination of aid are as follows: First, the Act requires — with no possibil- ity of exception — the termination of all mili- tary, economic, or financial assistance to any nation which, after the effective date of the embargo provisions of the Act, knowingly permits the shipment of arms, ammunition, implements of war, or atomic energy mate- rials to any nation or combination of nations threatening the security of the United States, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Re- publics and all countries under its domina- tion. The shipments made by the United King- dom, France, and Italy were not arms, am- munition, implements of war, or atomic energy materials, and indeed the Adminis- trator informs me that to his knowledge no country receiving assistance from the United States has made any shipments of that kind whatever. In addition the Act provides for the termi- nation of aid to any country that knowingly permits the shipment to the same nations of petroleum, transportation materials of strate- gic value, or items of primary strategic significance used in the production of arms, ammunition, and implements of war. How- ever, in cases involving items of those types (known as "Title I, Category B" items), the President may direct the continuance of aid to the country permitting the shipment "when unusual circumstances indicate that the cessation of aid would clearly be detri- mental to the security of the United States." The President may make such a determina- tion after receiving the advice of the Ad- ministrator and after taking into account these four considerations: "the contribution of such country to the mutual security of the free world, the importance of such assistance 1099 [358] Dec. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents to the security of the United States, the strate- gic importance of imports received from countries of the Soviet bloc, and the adequacy of such country's controls over the export to the Soviet bloc of items of strategic importance." The Administrator, Mr. W. Averell Harriman, who is also the Director for Mutual Security, has advised me that aid to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy should be continued. He made this recom- mendation after consulting with the Depart- ments of State, Treasury, Defense, Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce; the Office of Defense Mobilization, Mutual Security Agency, Atomic Energy Commission, and Central Intelligence Agency. Upon his advice, and after taking into account the four statutory considerations listed above, I have directed the continuance of assistance to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The rest of this letter will explain my reasons for so doing. The "Prior Commitments" Problem Up until the present case, there have been three decisions to continue aid to countries which had knowingly permitted shipments prescribed under the Battle Act. In those three cases the United States continued its aid to: The Netherlands, which had permitted certain oil drilling equipment to be shipped to Poland; Italy, which had permitted a grinding machine to be shipped to Rumania; Denmark, which had permitted a tanker to be shipped to the U.S.S.R. Those cases all involved "prior commit- ments"— that is, commitments made before the Battle Act embargo lists went into effect on January 24, 1952. The shipments of $2.5 million which now have been made by the British, French, and Italians also were in fulfillment of prior commitments. Still more of these commitments remain on the books of Western European countries. The problem of how to handle these obligations has been one of the most difficult issues that has arisen in the administration of the Battle Act. The first question to be faced was whether the Act applies to such commitments at all. The Act prohibits further assistance (unless a Presidential exception is made) when a country "knowingly permits" the shipment of items included in the Title I, Category B embargo 'list. In many cases, the countries in question had entered into trade agree- ments guaranteeing that they would permit the shipment of these items, and in other cases had issued, or promised to issue, export licenses covering such shipments. Thus there is a real question, especially in those countries where an export license cannot legally be revoked, whether the knowing permission had not been given at the time the foreign government signed the trade agree- ment or issued the export license. If it had been given at that time, the subsequent ship- ment would not be relevant, since the know- ing permission had taken place before Jan- uary 24, 1952, the effective date of the embargo list. If the Act were so construed, aid could be continued to such a country without a Presidential determination that continuance of aid was necessary. Despite the legal ambiguity surrounding this question, however, the Administrator has construed the Act as being applicable to all shipments of embargoed items after the effective date, even though the permission was given beforehand. I concur in this interpretation. It is the interpretation that seems to be most closely in accord with the objectives of the Act, which are to increase the strength of the United States and the cooperating nations and to impede the mili- tary ability of the Soviet Bloc. The contrary interpretation also raises certain questions as to inequality of treatment, based perhaps on nothing more substantial than the fortuitous timing of the issuance of an export license. For the Western European countries, however, the prospect of breaking firm con- tracts, made in good faith, raised serious problems. The governments of these coun- tries pointed out that East- West trade is I IOO Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 30 [358] basically the exchanging of Eastern raw materials for Western finished metal prod- ucts, and that this involves a considerable time differential in deliveries. The Soviet Bloc had placed contracts months, and even years, before many of the items now requir- ing embargo under the Battle Act were agreed to be strategic by most countries, and also before the invasion of Korea in 1950. In many cases the Soviet Bloc had carried out its portion of the exchange by making deliveries of timber, grains, coal, and other essential commodities, and was awaiting shipment of goods which, in effect, had already been paid for. The manufac- tured products, because of the time differ- ential, were scheduled for delivery to the East in 1952, 1953 and 1954. The Western European countries attach importance to the fulfillment of their formal trade obligations to the Soviet Bloc. They point out that the Communists constantly seek to picture the Western World as morally bankrupt and bent on the destruction of peaceful relations with the Soviet Bloc. They feel therefore that the moral position of the Western World in this battle of ideas would be weakened by outright violation of clear commitments. Despite the force of these contentions, the United States requested the Western Euro- pean countries concerned to freeze their shipments of prior commitment items, so that a joint review of the problem could be undertaken. This request led to an inten- sive review. As a result, the Western Euro- pean countries decided that some of the projected shipments could be eliminated without prejudice to the foregoing consider- ations. The eliminated shipments involved about one-quarter of the outstanding prior commitments. The three Battle Act exceptions already granted for the Netherlands, Italy, and Denmark total $3.3 million. Additional items valued at about $2.5 mil- lion now have been shipped. These are the British, French, and Italian shipments with respect to which I now have made a deter- mination that aid should be continued. The shipments originated as follows: United Kingdom, $583,818; France, $959,245; and Italy, $940,000. The items shipped from the United King- dom were forging machines, special metal- working machines, pumps, valves, rolling mill equipment, balances, locomotives and parts, specialized testing devices, ball and roller bearings, industrial greases and oils, a small quantity of nickel, and one blower. The items shipped from France were boring machines, valves, chemical equipment, com- pressors, electronic equipment, aluminum, and ball bearings. The items shipped from Italy were rolling mill equipment and ball and roller bearings. (See Appendix for a list of the items, their values, and their destinations.) There remain a number of other prior commitments on the books not only of the United Kingdom, France, and Italy but also of Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany. If further shipments of this kind take place, the United States Government will examine such cases on their merits and determine the appropriate action in the light of all the circumstances. Why the Cessation of Aid Would be Detri- mental to the Security of the United States Following are the considerations, speci- fied in the Battle Act, which have led to the conclusion that unusual circumstances indicate that the cessation of aid to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy would clearly be detrimental to the security of the United States. A. Contribution of those countries to the mutual security of the Free World All the countries associated in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are important to the success of the common undertaking. But the United Kingdom, France, and Italy are the three largest European members of NATO and the vital importance of their IIOI [358] Dec. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents participation can scarcely be exaggerated. In their foreign policies they support, as a basic principle, action directed toward the military and economic integration of West- ern Europe. By reason of their geographi- cal locations, their industrial capacity, their armed forces and their other resources, they are in a position to make, and they are mak- ing, contributions of the greatest value to the security of the Free World. In two world wars the United Kingdom has shown its determination to fight for its democratic way of life, and has, in those wars, borne the shock of combat in the early stages. In this sense it has in effect been a first bastion of defense for the Free World. Its example during the dark days of 1940 and 1 94 1 when it stood, with the Common- wealth, practically alone was one that cheered free men everywhere. France, the tradi- tional ally of the United States from the time of the American Revolution, has like- wise stood in the forefront of those willing to fight for a way of life that respected the dignity of the free individual. And Italy, despite a dark period in its history, has in recent years aligned itself firmly with the free nations of the world, and in the face of formidable obstacles has made a contri- bution of great value. Together, the United Kingdom and France account for about four-fifths of the defense expenditures of the European NATO countries. Their share of the total production of military equipment is even higher. They rank highest among those countries in the percentage of gross national product devoted to defense spending. The United Kingdom makes almost half of the defense expenditures of the European NATO countries. The United Kingdom and the United States have cooperated with each other in a manner unique in the history of nations. Common defense policies have been developed, and the practice of consulta- tion that was undertaken during the last war has made possible a coordinated defense which is a cornerstone of United States security. The air bases in the British Isles are a key element in the Free World's system of defense. The British fleet, together with that of the United States, stands in defense of our shores as well as theirs. The British merchant marine furnishes the United States, as well as the United Kingdom, with lines of supply. On the continent of Europe the British have the largest armored force of any NATO country, including the United States. France, a country which has been the batdefield of both world wars, which has seen the best of its youth depleted by those wars, which has undergone the anguish of enemy occupation, and which has been forced to struggle bitterly for its economic health, is second only to the United King- dom among European NATO countries in defense expenditures and in output of mili- tary equipment. The vast communications network upon which the common effort de- pends is centered in France. While making its defense contribution in Europe, France is carrying the burden of a war against Com- munists in Indo-China. Into that war it has poured a vast sum of money and the pick of its trained officers. Italy's contribution to the common security is in a sense one of the most noteworthy on the continent. For out of the wreckage of fascism has arisen a resolute government determined to play a major part in the struggle for freedom. Having experienced the evil of totalitarianism, Italy has resolved to stand on the side of freedom and to de- fend that freedom. Its natural resources are few. The social pressures which are the outcome of the poverty and distress of the masses have been intensified by years of totalitarian rule. Nevertheless, and despite the presence of a Communist party that feeds on the poverty of the country, the Italian Government has taken firm steps to preserve its internal security. It has modernized its military installations. In its harbors are based the NATO Mediterranean command, and its communications and sup- ply facilities are of incalculable value. The factories of these three countries pro- 1102 Harry S. Truman, 1952 Dec. 30 [358] duce goods and services needed by the NATO forces, and this production is given priority over civilian needs. By June 30, 1952, the United States had placed contracts with European manufacturers for $684 mil- lion of equipment to be used by NATO and the United States military forces. About half this amount is coming from France, with Italy and the United Kingdom having the next largest shares. In the year ending June 30, 1953, additional contracts of $1 bil- lion are expected to be let in Europe. B. Importance to the security of the United States of assistance to those countries The security of the United States is squarely based on the unity of the Western nations and the continued strengthening of their free institutions. In like manner the effectiveness of the contribution that the United Kingdom, France, and Italy can make toward that unity and strength is dependent at the present time on assistance from the United States. Since the end of World War II the United States has given net grants and credits to Western Europe that amount to $23.1 billion in economic aid and $2.7 billion in military aid — a total of about $25.8 billion. Of the economic aid, $6.4 billion went to the United Kingdom, $4.5 billion to France, and $2.4 billion to Italy. Those three countries also received large shares of United States mili- tary assistance. All this aid represents an investment directly in the interests of United States secu- rity. To terminate aid to the United King- dom, France, and Italy would seriously im- pair that security because it would jeopardize the effectiveness of the free nations' first line of defense in Europe. Our assistance is in- dispensable to the three countries; without it they would be unable to carry the military burdens they have assumed in NATO. Moreover, since the plans developed in NATO are integrated plans which depend for their success on the continued perform- ance of these countries, the collapse of their defense efforts would mean the collapse of the whole NATO system. We would be imperilling a $25 billion investment in West- ern defense for a consideration of $2.5 mil- lion worth of shipments which already have gone to the Soviet Bloc. Regrettable as these shipments may be, and important as these commodities may be to the Soviet Bloc, their strategic advantage to the Communists is far outweighed by the damage to our own secu- rity that would result from the termination of assistance. C. Strategic importance of imports received by those countries from the Soviet Bloc Each of the three, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy, has historical trade rela- tionships with one or more of the countries now included in the Soviet Bloc. A certain degree of dependence upon Eastern Europe has been developed, both as a market and a source of supply. The three nations have exchanged their own products for essential coal, grain, foodstuffs, and other commod- ities. If these countries were forced to shift to other sources of supply, the shift would require the expenditure of more dollars, which these countries do not have. The United Kingdom can produce only 40 percent of its own food supply. It is thus dependent on imports to feed its popu- lation. Since the end of World War II the United Kingdom has obtained very impor- tant quantities of coarse grains and timber products from the Soviet Bloc. The coarse grains, through the increase in domestically produced meats and poultry products, have made a vital contribution to the diet of the British people. The timber products have helped to provide adequate housing for a significant number of British families; and such items as pit props have assisted directly in the increase of coal production. If the British did not obtain these impor- tant items from the Soviet Bloc, they would either have to procure them largely in dollar 1 103 [358] Dec. 30 Public Papers of the Presidents areas or go without. If they decided to procure these items in dollar areas, they would almost inevitably have to reduce their defense expenditures in order to obtain the needed dollars. If they decided to go with- out, they would have to worsen an already austere standard of living. Either alterna- tive would weaken the British contribution to the common defense. A somewhat similar pattern exists in both France and Italy— made more difficult in both these countries, however, by the pres- ence of large and vocal Communist groups. The Communist propaganda line has long been that refusal to trade with Eastern Europe has placed severe hardships on West- ern Europeans by cutting them off from important supplies traditionally purchased in Eastern Europe. Italy still depends on the Soviet Bloc for supplies of such vital imports as coal, manga- nese, iron and steel, wheat and foodstuffs. Italy normally imports about nine-tenths of its coal requirements, and in 195 1 the Bloc supplied iiYi percent of Italy's coal imports and 11 percent of coke imports. Also in 195 1 the Bloc supplied 6.5 percent of Italy's manganese imports, 7 percent of its pig iron imports, over 12 percent of wheat imports, and almost 20 percent of other grains in- cluding rye, barley, and oats. France, too, gets important quantities of certain essential imports from the Soviet Bloc, such as certain types of coal, although France's total trade with the Bloc is not as large as Italy's or Britain's. In 195 1 France received from the Bloc almost 10 percent of its coal and coke imports, 8V2 percent of its total glycerine imports, and 10 percent of its asbestos imports. Part of the reason why Western Europe has been able to reduce its dependence on Eastern supplies to these levels, and hence withstand to a marked degree the Soviet Bloc pressures for strategic items, has been the existence of United States aid. If we were suddenly to withdraw this aid, the flow of strategic goods and services to the Iron Curtain areas would be bound to increase. This would defeat the purpose of the Battle Act, not contribute to it. D. Adequacy of British, French, and Italian controls over the export of strategic items to the Soviet bloc Failure to abrogate all their prior com- mitments should not be allowed to obscure the fact that these three countries have long operated effective controls over strategic items and have prevented the shipment of large quantities of these items to the Soviet bloc. The British, in fact, enacted controls before the United States did so. Many improvements can undoubtedly be made in some controls systems, and work along these lines is in progress. These countries have been important participants in international discussions of controls — a cooperative pro- gram that is unprecedented. In deciding whether to terminate aid in these cases, I have been guided by the basic objectives of the Act — to strengthen the security of the United States and of the Free World. This Government has sought con- stantly to avoid placing weapons in the hands of the Soviet Bloc with which to attack the Free World. But weapons take various forms. They may be commodities of stra- tegic importance; they may be hunger or discontent within the borders of friendly countries; or they may be discord between our allies and ourselves. We must guard against giving the Soviet Bloc any of these weapons. It is my firm conviction that the decision to continue aid in these cases best serves the security interests of the United States. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: This is the text of identical letters sent to the Honorable Kenneth McKellar, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Honorable Richard B. Russell, Chairman, Senate Committee I IO4 Harry S. Truman, 7952 Dec. 31 [359] on Armed Services, the Honorable Tom Connally, Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Honorable Clarence Cannon, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, the Honorable Carl Vinson, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, and the Honorable James P. Richards, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Appendix to the letter was also released. 359 The President's News Conference of December 31, 1952 the president. Please be seated. I have an announcement or two that I will give you, then you can ask questions, if you like. [1.] At 10:30 to 11, January 15th, I am going to make a broadcast to the Nation on the radio, and I thought you would like to know about that.1 [2.] Then I have got a statement here. The Secretary of Agriculture2 announced that he was applying some additional re- strictions to imports of dairy products, in accordance with the provisions of 104 of the Defense Production Act. I think that is the wrong thing to do. I am not in favor of it at all. And you will have a copy of this statement on the subject, when you get ready to go out.3 Q. Mr. President, could you go over the first part of that again, about the Secretary of Agriculture? the president. The Secretary of Agri- culture announced yesterday that he was applying some additional restrictions to imports of dairy products, in accordance with the provisions of section 104 of the Defense Production Act. Q. Thank you, sir. the president. I don't approve of it. Q. I assume, sir, that you have told him that? the president. Oh, yes. He is in ac- cord with this statement that I am issuing. He is only following the law because he has to. Q. You mean you don't approve of the 1See Item 378. 2 Charles F. Brannan. 3 See Item 360. Secretary's action, or you don't approve of the act? the president. I don't approve of sec- tion 104 in the first place. That gets to the meat of the whole thing. Q. The Secretary is only carrying it out within the law? the president. That's right — within the law. Q. The disapproval doesn't reverse the act? the president. No, no it doesn't. I don't try to repeal any laws because I haven't got that power. I have been accused of it, though. [Laughter] [3.] Q. Mr. President, what is the pres- ent status of the John Carter Vincent case? 4 the president. I don't know. It isn't up to me yet. [4.] Q. Mr. President, I would like to know what you are going to talk about on January 15th? the president. Talk about the state of the Nation. You will know. I will give it to you in time so you can inform your- selves in time to write all kinds of stories about it, but not before I make the speech. Q. Will that be on TV too, Mr. President? the president. I don't know Roger Tubby: 5 Yes, it will. the president. Yes, it will. Roger Tubby: All networks. the president. Roger says it will. [5.] Q. Mr. President, since this is the last day before the New Year, how is it look- ing back — it looks to us as if it has been 855 days — how does it look to you, sir? 4 See Item 362. 5 Roger Tubby, Assistant Press Secretary. I IO5 [359] Dec. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. It looks like any other year to me. I just have to work 17 hours a day all the time. I don't see any difference. Q. I meant the Nation— looking back the president. Well, I will tell you about that in the State of the Union Message. Q. Mr. President, will your radio speech be in lieu of a personal appearance, on the occasion of the State of the Union Message? the president. I do not intend to make a personal appearance on the State of the Union Message, but that appearance on the radio and television is not in lieu of that. I would have done that, anyway, if I had appeared there in person. [6.] Q. Mr. President, looking to the year ahead and comparing it with the same time last year, how do you see the state of the peace? the president. Well, I am not in a posi- tion to be a prophet. I am neither a pollster nor a columnist, so I don't make any predictions. Q. May I make it more specific then, sir? Does it look to you as if the chances of peace are as good in the next year as it looked to you at this time last year? the president. Yes, I think that is true — probably better. [7.] Q. Mr. President, is there some par- ticular need or situation that impels you to make this broadcast? the president. I am making it just be- cause I want to. That is good enough reason. Q. Mr. President, you will apparently have something more to say to the Nation, in addition to the State of the Union Mes- sage that goes to Congress? the president. Yes, that is probable. You will find out, though. There isn't going to be any mystery. I am going to release it so you will have plenty of time to read it. [8.] Q. Mr. President, General Mac- Arthur said you had been using the Korean war as a means for self-glorification? the president. No comment. [9.] Q. Mr. President, I see Senator Taft says that the new legislative program will put us back on the track where we got off 20 years ago. Do you think, sir, that's feasi- ble? [Laughter] the president. Well now, I don't want to make any prophecies, but I am of the opinion that if Senator Taft has his way, that is what will happen. [Laughter] [10.] Q. Mr. President, would you tell us why you think the prospects for peace are probably better now than they were a year ago? the president. Just because I feel that way. I know all the facts behind the cur- tain, a lot of things that I can't talk about publicly. I just feel that the chances are even better than they were the first day of January last year. Q. Even better, Mr. President? the president. Yes. [n.] Q. Mr. President, when Richard Balch, the new Democratic State Chairman in New York, was asked whether he thought Jim Farley 6 was a real Democrat. He paused for a while, and the reporter said, "No answer?" and Mr. Balch answered, "No answer." I wonder if you think Jim Farley is a real Democrat? the president. I have no comment on any comment by anybody else on somebody else. [Laughter] Q. Well, I want your opinion on Mr. Farley the president. I think very highly of Mr. Farley. I always have. [12.] Q. Mr. President, in your refer- ences to peace, were you referring directly to the Korean war? the president. I was referring to the cold war Q. Generally the president. all around the world. All around the world. [13.] Q. Mr. President, this being New Year's Eve, do you plan any personal reso- lutions tonight? 6 James A. Farley, former Postmaster General and former chairman of the National Democratic Com- mittee. 1 106 Harry S. Truman, igp Dec. 31 [359] the president. About the only resolution I can think of is, I hope the Lord will give nie power to prevent me from swearing at the newspapers. [Laughter] Q. Mr. President, have you been more impelled to swear the president. What's that? What's that? Q. Have you been more impelled to swear lately than usual? the president. No. I have always been in that same frame of mind when it comes to the vast majority. You see, 90 percent of them have always been against me. [14.] Q. Could I return to the statement you made at the beginning of the confer- ence about the imports on dairy the president. Well, you will receive a mimeographed copy of the whole statement, which will cover nearly any question you choose to ask. Q. One point I am not certain about is whether you mean that you — that the Sec- retary of Agriculture ought not to have the president. The Secretary of Agri- culture had to carry out the law. He was obeying the law. That is what he had to do. [15.] Q. Mr. President, shortly the Tariff Commission will make some recommenda- tions to you — you may have them already, sir, I don't know — about putting new wool import fees on. That is in line with the same sort of thing the president. I know nothing about it. It hasn't come up to me. If they don't, it will be a wonder, because it comes in every once in a while. [16.] Q. Mr. President, this is the first time that you have not addressed the Con- gress personally in your State of the Union Message ? the president. I don't know whether it is or not. I am not sure about it. Q. I believe it is. the president. I am not sure about that. But the recommendations on the state of the Union will have to be made by the new President. That is the reason I am not going down there. My State of the Union Message will be a statement on conditions as they exist, without any recommendations from me as to what ought to be done. Q. Then you will just send the message down? the president. Yes. In the Inaugural Address of the new President, he will outline the legislative program, which is proper and right. Q. Yes, sir. the president. I don't think I ought to outline one. [17.] Q. Mr. President, have you heard of any new plan for hastening the end of the Korean war? the president. No. None has come to me. [18.] Q. Mr. President, have you any comment on the move under way to repeal Rule 22 of the Senate? the president. I read the brief on it. I think it is a very good thing. When I was in the Senate I was terribly put out with filibusters, and the Senate ought to find out some way to control its legislative action. I hope they will. [19.] Q. Mr. President, to clarify the previous question, if you had heard about any new program for ending the Korean war you obviously couldn't talk about it, could you? the president. No, not publicly. Unless it was something that I had that I could put into effect, in which case I would act immediately. [20.] Q. Mr. President, have you any thoughts you want to convey to Prime Minis- ter Churchill when he comes over here? the president. The Prime Minister is coming to pay a courtesy call on me. I ex- pect to have dinner with him that night, and I suppose we will discuss shoes, ships, and sealing wax and things, just like we always do. Q. There is nothing that he can take up with you ? the president. I don't know of anything. He is a very courteous gentleman, and he and I are good friends. I suppose he just 1 107 [359] Dec. 31 Public Papers of the Presidents wants to maybe discuss some historical events in which we both took part. Q. Anything we have overlooked, Mr. President? the president. I don't think so. Q. Thank you, sir. Reporters: Happy New Year. the president. Thank you all. A Happy New Year to all of you. note: President Truman's three hundred and twenty- second news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 31, 1952. 360 Statement by the President on the Restriction on Imports of Dairy Products. December 31, 1952 THE SECRETARY of Agriculture an- nounced yesterday that he was applying some additional restrictions to imports of dairy products, in accordance with the provisions of section 104 of the Defense Production Act. Section 104 requires the Secretary of Agri- culture to put restrictions on imports of dairy products in various circumstances, including the situation in which the restrictions may be needed to prevent unnecessary expenditures under a Government price-support program. Since the Government has recently been buy- ing considerable amounts of butter, and other dairy products, the Secretary had no choice but to restrict imports which might add unnecessarily to his purchases. It is a thoroughly objectionable piece of legislation. It was tacked on to the Defense Production Act in 1951, over the administra- tion's opposition. The measures which the Secretary of Agriculture has been forced to take under its provisions will not be helpful to American interests. On the contrary, this kind of step, in the end, is bound to hurt not only our relations with other friendly coun- tries, but also the agricultural interests that the law is supposed to protect. While the restrictions themselves are going to have very little effect on the American market, they are going to hurt our friends in the Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand, and a number of other countries. These countries are going to lose dollars. They are going to be in a poorer position for buying American agricul- tural products and in a poorer position to finance their defense efforts. This is the kind of law which makes the job of the Kremlin's propaganda experts a great deal easier. The only recourse I can see is to repeal this provi- sion of the law. note: See also Item 359 [2, 14]. 361 Letter Recommending Living Expense Deductions for the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. January 2, 1953 My dear Senator George: I am writing to you and Senator Millikin and also to Congressmen Cooper and Reed to ask for your cooperation in prompt han- dling of a legislative matter which I am sure you will agree should be approached on a completely nonpartisan basis. The last Congress took a noteworthy step when it repealed the provisions of law under which tax-free expense allowances were pro- vided for the President, the Vice-President, and the Speaker and other members of the Congress. I have long felt that the prin- ciple of special tax-free allowances was un- democratic and not in keeping with our concepts of the use of the taxing power. I was also gratified when the Congress, in lieu of granting its members a tax-free ex- 1108 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 2 [361] pense allowance, authorized as a tax deduc- tion the special costs of maintaining them- selves here in Washington, up to a maximum of $3,000 a year. Even though this step may have the result of reducing slightly the tax liability of the average Congressman, I believe that the concept underlying the new legislation is sound and wholly defensible. Tax deductions for legitimate purposes are quite different from special tax exemptions. The Congress, however, did not recognize in this legislation that the President, the Vice-President and the Speaker also have extraordinary living expenses, which result from the discharge of their official duties and which ought to be a permissible deduc- tion for income tax purposes. You may not be acquainted with some of the requirements which are placed upon the President. It has been assumed, for ex- ample, that the President does not have to pay for any part of the expenses incurred in running the White House. This assump- tion is incorrect. The President pays very substantial sums each month for food and services furnished to him and his family and guests. Official entertainment and travel of the President are paid for by the Govern- ment from the White House appropriation under an authorization for an annual ap- propriation of not exceeding $40,000 for these purposes. In recent years this fund has not been adequate to defray all of the expenses properly chargeable to it. , In addi- tion, there are other special living expenses associated with the Office of the President of the United States which are neither pay- able by the Government nor deductible for income tax purposes. I do not believe that the Congress realized the full extent of the effect of its repeal of the tax-free features of the expense allow- ances. I would like, therefore, to give you some figures and to recommend most ear- nestly that the Congress take appropriate steps along the lines of the attached draft of a bill to permit the President, the Vice-Presi- dent and the Speaker to deduct living ex- penses from their taxable income. With a salary of $100,000 and a tax-free expense allowance of $50,000, the President (assuming he is married and has no depend- ents other than his wife) now has a maxi- mum tax liability of more than $56,000, or better than one-third of his total compensa- tion. In the case of the Vice-President and the Speaker, with salaries of $30,000 and $10,000 tax-free allowances, the income tax liability runs slightly in excess of $9,400 or almost one-fourth of total compensation. Under the changes in law making the ex- pense allowances taxable, and at existing tax rates, the tax liability of the next President will climb to more than $95,000 a year, that of the Vice-President to almost $15,000, and that of the Speaker (if there is taken into account the special living expense deduction of $3,000 as a Member of Congress) to over $13,000. I do not believe that this is equitable or that the Congress intended any such result. As a basis for the consideration of the Congress, I have suggested in the draft bill that special living expense deductions be authorized for the President, the Vice- President, and the Speaker up to maximum amounts of $50,000, $10,000, and $10,000, respectively. Under present tax laws such deductions, if wholly taken, would maintain their tax liabilities at the present level, which I believe is equitable when the financial demands of the respective offices are con- sidered. I am sure that the Congress does not wish the three highest elective officers of the United States to use their savings or to borrow money to maintain the offices to which they have been elected, and to cover the expenses over which they have little control. Ordinarily I would have addressed the Speaker and the Vice President. Since they are personally affected by the proposed legis- lation I felt it would be more appropriate to write directly to the ranking members of the Committees which have responsibility for tax matters. 55-672,— 6 -73 1 109 [361] Jan. 2 Public Papers of the Presidents So far as the President is concerned, the Constitution requires that any corrective action must be taken prior to January 20. I most sincerely hope that my recommenda- tion for such corrective action will receive the immediate and favorable consideration of the Congress. Sincerely, Harry S. Truman [Senator Walter F. George, United States Senate, Washington 25, D.C.] note: Senator George was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Similar letters were sent to Eugene D. Millikin, a ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and to the ranking Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, Jere Cooper, Chairman, and Daniel 'A. Reed. The text of the draft legislation was released with the President's letter. 362 Memorandum on the Secretary of State's Recommendation in the Case of John Carter Vincent. January 3, 1953 Memorandum to the Secretary of State: I have read your memorandum of today concerning the case of John Carter Vincent. I think the suggestions which you make are well taken and I authorize and direct you to proceed in the manner which you have outlined. Harry S. Truman note: The text of the Secretary of State's memo- randum to the President follows: MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT Subject: Case of John Carter Vincent I have recently been advised by Chairman Bing- ham of the Loyalty Review Board that a panel of the Loyalty Review Board has considered the case of Mr. John Carter Vincent, a Foreign Service Offi- cer with class of Career Minister. Chairman Bing- ham also advises me that while the panel did not find Mr. Vincent guilty of disloyalty, it has reluctantly concluded that there is reasonable doubt as to his loyalty to the Government of the United States. Chairman Bingham further advises me that it is therefore the recommendation of the Board that the services of Mr. Vincent be terminated. Such a recommendation by so distinguished a Board is indeed serious and impressive and must be given great weight. The final responsibility, however, for making a decision as to whether Mr. Vincent should be dismissed is that of the Secretary of State. I am advised that any doubt which might have previously existed on this point has been re- moved by the recent decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in James Kutcher, Appellant, v. Carl Gray, Jr., Vet- erans Administration, Appellee. That case estab- lishes that the action of the Board is a recommenda- tion "just that, . . . nothing more" and that in the last analysis, upon the Head of the Department is imposed "the duty to impartially determine on all the evidence" the proper disposition of the case. A most important item on which I must rely in exercising this responsibility, is the communication from Chairman Bingham in which he advised me of the conclusion reached by his panel. This communication contains elements which raise serious problems. In the first place, I note a statement that the panel has not accepted or rejected the testimony of Mr. Budenz that he recalls being informed by others that Mr. Vincent was a Communist and under Com- munist discipline. The panel also states that it does not accept or reject the findings of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate with respect to Mr. Vin- cent and the Institute of Pacific Relations or the find- ings of the Committee with respect to the participa- tion of Mr. Vincent in the development of United States policy towards China in 1945. The panel, however, proceeds to state that, although it has not accepted or rejected these factors, it has taken them into account. I am unable to interpret what this means. If the panel did take these factors into account, this means that it must have relied upon them in making its final determination. Yet I am unable to understand how these factors could have played a part in the final determination of the panel if these factors were neither accepted nor rejected by the Board. This is not merely a point of language. It is a point of real substance. It is difficult for me to exercise the responsibility which is mine under the law with the confusion which has been cast as to the weight which the panel gave to the charges of Mr. Budenz or the findings of the Senate Committee. The communication from the panel raises another issue which goes to the heart of operation of the Department of State and the Foreign Service. It is the issue of accurate reporting. The communi- cation contains the following statement: "The panel notes Mr. Vincent's studied praise of Chinese Communists and equally studied criticism IIIO Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 3 [362] of the Chiang Kai-shek Government throughout a period when it was the declared and established policy of the Government of the United States to support Chiang Kai-shek's Government." Mr. Vincent's duty was to report the facts as he saw them. It was not merely to report successes of existing policy but also to report on the aspects in which it was failing and the reasons therefor. If this involved reporting that situations existed in the administration of the Chinese Nationalists which had to be corrected if the Nationalist Government was to survive, it was his duty to report this. If this involved a warning not to underestimate the combat potential of the Chinese Communists, or their contribution to the war against Japan, it was his duty to report this. In the hearings which followed the relief of General MacArthur, General Wedemeyer has testified that he has made reports equally as critical of the administration of the Chinese Nationalists. The great majority of reports which Mr. Vincent drafted were reviewed and signed by Ambassador Gauss, an outstanding expert in the Far East. Ambassador Gauss has made it crystal clear that in his mind the reports drafted by Mr. Vincent were both accurate and objective. I do not exclude the possibility that in this or in any other case a board might find that the reports of an officer might or might not disclose a bias which might have a bearing on the issue of his loyalty. But in so delicate a matter, affecting so deeply the integrity of the Foreign Service, I should wish to be advised by persons thoroughly familiar with the problems and procedures of the Department of State and the Foreign Service. This involves an issue far greater in importance than the disposition of a loyalty case involving one man. Important as it is to do full justice to the individual concerned, it is essential that we should not by inadvertence take any step which might lower the high traditions of our own Foreign Service to the level established by governments which will permit their diplomats to report to them only what they want to hear. The memorandum from Mr. Bingham indicates that the Board also took into account "Mr. Vincent's failure properly to discharge his responsibilities as Chairman of the Far Eastern Subcommittee of State, War and Navy to supervise the accuracy or security of State Department documents emanating from that Subcommittee." The statement which refers to the security of the files seems to me to be inadvertent. Presumably it is a reference to the fact that State Department documents were involved in the Amer- asia case. However, in the many Congressional in- vestigations which have followed that case it has not been suggested that Mr. Vincent had any responsibil- ity for those documents. I have not discovered any such evidence in the file in this case. The reference to the accuracy of the State Department documents emanating from that Committee is obscure. In any case, while it might be relative to Mr. Vincent's com- petence in performing his duties, it does not seem to me to have any bearing on the question of loyalty. The report finally refers to Mr. Vincent's associa- tion with numerous persons "who, he had reason to believe," were either Communists or Communist sympathizers. This is indeed a matter which, if un- explained, is of importance and clearly relevant. It involves inquiry as to whether this association arose in the performance of his duties or otherwise. It further involves an inquiry as to the pattern of Mr. Vincent's close personal friends and whether he knew or should have known that any of these might be Communists or Communist sympathizers. All these matters raised in my mind the necessity for further inquiry. This further inquiry was made possible by the documents in this proceeding which you provided me upon my request. I find upon examining the documents that the recommendation made by the panel of the Loyalty Review Board was made by a majority of one, two of the members believing that no evidence had been produced which led them to have a doubt as to Mr. Vincent's loyalty. In this situation, I believe that I cannot in good conscience and in the exercise of my own judgment, which is my duty under the law, carry out this rec- ommendation of the Board. I do not believe, how- ever, that in the exercise of my responsibility to the Government, I can or should let the matter rest here. I believe that I must ask for further guidance. I, therefore, ask your permission to seek the advice of some persons who will combine the highest judi- cial qualifications of weighing the evidence with the greatest possible familiarity of the works and stand- ards of the Department of State and the Foreign Service, both in reporting from the field and making decisions in the Department. If you approve, I should propose to ask the following persons to ex- amine the record in this case and to advise me as to what disposition in their judgment should be made in this case. Judge Learned B. Hand, who, until his retire- ment, has been the senior judge for the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to serve as Chairman; Mr. John J. McCloy, former High Commissioner for Germany; Mr. James Grafton Rogers, former Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary Stimson; Mr. G. Howland Shaw, a retired Foreign Service Officer and a former Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary Hull; and Mr. Edmund Wilson, a retired Foreign Service Officer and former Ambassador. I should ask them to read the record in this case and at their earliest convenience inform the Secretary of State of their conclusions. Dean G. Acheson Secretary of State IIII [363] Jan. 5 Public Papers of the Presidents 363 Letter in Response to the Latest Reports From the Bureau of the Census. January 5, 1953 Dear Dr. Peel: I appreciate most highly receiving the latest census reports which show so graphi- cally the wonderful economic conditions of the United States. These figures confirm the facts, obvious to most of us, that the American people are today better off than ever before in our history. I am deeply satisfied to know just how great has been our amazing progress during the last ten years. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable Roy V. Peel, Director, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.] note: Dr. Peel's letter to the President follows: Mr. President: During your administration, the people of the United States have made tremendous gains in their incomes, standard of living, education, housing, and in numerous other ways which have been reflected in Census figures. These gains are unparalleled in American history. The Seventeenth Decennial Census, which re- corded the facts relating to the condition of the country on April i, 1950, showed that there were nearly 151 million people, grouped in well over 43 million households with 46 million dwelling units at their disposal. Over half of all dwellings were occupied by owners; and of these own-homes, some 56.4 percent were free of mortgage indebted- ness. Although the total of 5,400,000 farms was smaller than in 1940, there were 78 million more acres devoted to farming than a decade earlier. Three-quarters of all farms are now operated by the owners. Never before in history have so many farmers had the help of modern facilities, machinery and equipment. In 1950, over five and a half million farmers reported sales exceeding 22 billion dollars, an all-time high. These are the salient facts revealed by the 1950 Censuses of Population, Hous- ing and Agriculture. The Census of Manufactures, covering operations in 1947, enumerated 241 thousand establishments with value added by manufacture amounting to 74.5 billion dollars. Last year, according to the Census Bureau's annual survey of trends, value added was about 102 billion dollars. The Census of Business, covering operations in 1948, gave the facts on nearly 3 million retail stores, wholesale establishments and service businesses. Retail sales in 1948 totalled 130.5 billion dollars. At the present time, retail sales exceed 160 billion dollars. The Census Bureau's current statistical reports show that there are now some 158 million Amer- icans. Preliminary studies of transportation and mining, and current surveys of foreign trade, carried out by the Bureau of the Census, indicate that in these fields, too, the achievements of the American people are without parallel in the history of the whole world. Believing that these facts documenting our growth and greatness as a nation, will be a source of gratification to you, the President of the United States, under whose direction this magnificent rec- ord of accomplishment was compiled, I have the honor to present to you token copies of the most recent reports on the Censuses of Manufactures, Business, Population, Housing and Agriculture. It is our hope to place in your hands, the final, complete volumes as soon as they are published. May you and the Americans of future generations derive both satisfaction and inspiration from this portrayal of the might of America. Roy V. Peel 364 Statement by the President on Report "Whom We Shall Welcome" by the Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. January 5, 1953 I HAVE personally extended my congratu- lations and my gratitude to members of the special Commission on Immigration and Naturalization for the excellent report which the Commission has submitted to me. The report "Whom We Shall Welcome," reflects painstaking and scholarly effort of the highest order, and is a valuable and objec- III2 Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 6 [365] tive contribution to the subject of immigra- tion and naturalization. It is based upon extensive hearings in various sections of the country, at which people of all religions, faiths, and all political persuasions urged drastic and far-reaching amendments to the present immigration and naturalization law. I am very pleased that the record of these hearings and the statements filed with the Commission have been preserved in printed form, available to the public. It is to be regretted that persons who dis- agree with the findings of the Commission have resorted to personal vituperation and slander of its members and its Executive Director. Such politically motivated attacks have, unfortunately, become all too common in controversies over issues of great public importance. In this case, these attacks are particularly unwarranted and reprehensible. This is a Commission of distinguished citi- zens, noted for their experience with the subject under inquiry — as churchmen, lay- men, or public officials. They have freely given months of devoted, patriotic, and able service in the interest of finding solutions for some of the most important questions that affect our country. The nongovern- mental members have served without com- pensation or other reward. Their study is impartial, nonpartisan, and thorough. Their report ought to receive the most serious consideration on its merits. I be- lieve that it will. note: The report, dated January 1, 1953, was pub- lished by the Government Printing Office (1952, 319 pp.). See also Items 244, 373. 365 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Proclamation Enlarging the Olympic National Park. January 6, 1953 UNDER AUTHORITY given me by the act of Congress creating the Olympic Na- tional Park, I have issued a proclamation today adding to the park 47,753 acres of land now owned by the Federal Government. This action brings the area of the park to but 1,692 acres below the 898,292 acres authorized by the Congress in 1938. The present additions bring to completion a great conservation undertaking sponsored by two former Presidents and authorized by the Congress. Theodore Roosevelt first gave it form on March 2, 1909, when he issued a proclamation establishing the Mt. Olympus National Monument. The Na- tional Monument thus established included some 600,000 acres and was created pri- marily for protection of the Olympic elk. In 1938, the Congress made the Monument a National Park and enlarged it and provided for its completion, for the purpose of pre- serving the gigantic virgin timber — trees up to 300 feet tall — which was so rapidly disap- pearing from the American Northwest. Franklin D. Roosevelt twice enlarged the park by proclamations, issued in 1940 and 1943, which increased its area to 848,845 acres. At all stages of the park's development, careful attention has been given to the needs of Olympic Peninsula timber industries. The present additions include an ocean strip of 41,969 acres acquired as part of the 1939 Public Works program. This portion embraces 50 miles of Pacific Ocean front connected with the Olympic Mountains by a narrow corridor of scenic forest along the Queets River. At its northern extremity, the ocean strip widens slightly to include the western shore of beautiful Lake Ozelle. In 1940, when President Roosevelt ex- ercised the major portion of the power given by Congress to enlarge the park, the bound- aries were drawn to exclude an area 1 mile wide and 9 miles long, extending straight into the park along the Bogachiel River. This area, privately owned, was left out in order that it might be acquired for future inclusion through an exchange for it of na- tional forest timber. The Forest Service, III3 [365] Jan. 6 Public Papers of the Presidents after long and careful negotiation, has brought 5,642 acres into public ownership, and I am incorporating this into the park. This insures the preservation of the 250-foot Sitka spruces of the Bogachiel Valley. The Olympic National Park, established for the benefit and enjoyment of the Amer- ican people, now becomes the only park in the world to extend from snowcapped mountains to ocean beaches. note: The President issued Proclamation 3003 "Enlarging the Olympic National Park Washington'* (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 178). 366 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. January 7, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: I have the honor to report to the Congress on the state of the Union. This is the eighth such report that, as President, I have been privileged to present to you and to the country. On previous occasions, it has been my custom to set forth proposals for legislative action in the coming year. But that is not my purpose today. The presentation of a legislative program falls properly to my successor, not to me, and I would not infringe upon his respon- sibility to chart the forward course. Instead, I wish to speak of the course we have been following the past eight years and the posi- tion at which we have arrived. In just two weeks, General Eisenhower will be inaugurated as President of the United States and I will resume — most gladly — my place as a private citizen of this Republic. The Presidency last changed hands eight years ago this coming April. That was a tragic time: a time of grieving for President Roosevelt — the great and gal- lant human being who had been taken from us; a time of unrelieved anxiety to his suc- cessor, thrust so suddenly into the complexi- ties and burdens of the Presidential office. Not so this time. This time we see the normal transition under our democratic system. One President, at the conclusion of his term, steps back to private life; his suc- cessor, chosen by the people, begins his tenure of the office. And the Presidency of the United States continues to function without a moment's break. Since the election, I have done my best to assure that the transfer from one Administra- tion to another shall be smooth and orderly. From General Eisenhower and his associates, I have had friendly and understanding col- laboration in this endeavor. I have not sought to thrust upon him — nor has he sought to take — the responsibility which must be mine until twelve o'clock noon on January twentieth. But together, I hope and believe we have found means whereby the incoming President can obtain the full and detailed information he will need to assume the responsibility the moment he takes the oath of office. The President-elect is about to take up the greatest burdens, the most compelling re- sponsibilities, given to any man. And I, with you and all Americans, wish for him all possible success in undertaking the tasks that will so soon be his. What are these tasks? The President is Chief of State, elected representative of all the people, national spokesman for them and to them. He is Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces. He is charged with the con- duct of our foreign relations. He is Chief Executive of the Nation's largest civilian or- ganization. He must select and nominate all top officials of the Executive Branch and all Federal judges. And on the legislative side, he has the obligation and the opportunity to recommend, and to approve or veto legisla- tion. Besides all this, it is to him that a great political party turns naturally for leadership, and that, too, he must provide as President. This bundle of burdens is unique; there is nothing else like it on the face of the earth. III4 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] Each task could be a full-time job. Together, they would be a tremendous undertaking in the easiest of times. But our times are not easy; they are hard — as hard and complex, perhaps as any in our history. Now, the President not only has to carry on these tasks in such a way that our democracy may grow and flourish and our people prosper, but he also has to lead the whole free world in overcoming the commu- nist menace — and all this under the shadow of the atomic bomb. This is a huge challenge to the human be- ing who occupies the Presidential office. But it is not a challenge to him alone, for in real- ity he cannot meet it alone. The challenge runs not just to him but to his whole Ad- ministration, to the Congress, to the country. Ultimately, no President can master his responsibilities, save as his fellow citizens — indeed, the whole people — comprehend the challenge of our times and move, with him, to meet it. It has been my privilege to hold the Presi- dential office for nearly eight years now, and much has been done in which I take great pride. But this is not personal pride. It is pride in the people, in the Nation. It is pride in our political system and our form of government — balky sometimes, mechanically deficient perhaps, in many ways — but enormously alive and vigorous; able through these years to keep the Republic on the right course, rising to the great. occasions, accom- plishing the essentials, meeting the basic challenge of our times. There have been misunderstandings and controversies these past eight years, but through it all the President of the United States has had that measure of support and understanding without which no man could sustain the burdens of the Presidential office, or hope to discharge its responsibilities. For this I am profoundly grateful — grate- ful to my associates in the Executive Branch — most of them non-partisan civil servants; grateful — despite our disagree- ments— to the Members of the Congress on both sides of the aisle; grateful especially to the American people, the citizens of this Republic, governors of us all. We are still so close to recent controversies that some of us may find it hard to under- stand the accomplishments of these past eight years. But the accomplishments are real and very great, not as the President's, not as the Congress', but as the achievements of our country and all the people in it. Let me remind you of some of the things we have done since I first assumed my duties as President of the United States. I took the oath of office on April 12, 1945. In May of that same year, the Nazis sur- rendered. Then, in July, that great white flash of light, man-made at Alamogordo, heralded swift and final victory in World War II — and opened the doorway to the atomic age. Consider some of the great questions that were posed for us by sudden, total victory in World War II. Consider also, how well we as a Nation have responded. Would the American economy collapse, after the war? That was one question. Would there be another depression here — a repetition of 192 1 or 1929? The free world feared and dreaded it. The communists hoped for it and built their policies upon that hope. We answered that question — answered it with a resounding "no." Our economy has grown tremendously. Free enterprise has flourished as never be- fore. Sixty-two million people are now gainfully employed, compared with 51 mil- lion seven years ago. Private businessmen and farmers have invested more than 200 billion dollars in new plant and equipment since the end of World War II. Prices have risen further than they should have done — but incomes, by and large, have risen even more, so that real living standards are now considerably higher than seven years ago. Aided by sound government policies, our expanding economy has shown the strength and flexibility for swift and almost painless reconversion from war to peace, in 1945 and 1946; for quick reaction and re- III5 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents covery — well before Korea — from the begin- nings of recession in 1949. Above all, this live and vital economy of ours has now shown the remarkable capacity to sustain a great mobilization program for defense, a vast outpouring of aid to friends and allies all around the world — and still to produce more goods and services for peaceful use at home than we have ever known before. This has been our answer, up to now, to those who feared or hoped for a depres- sion in this country. How have we handled our national fi- nances? That was another question arising at war's end. In the administration of the Government, no problem takes more of the President's time, year in and year out, than fashioning the Budget, and the related prob- lem of managing the public debt. Financing World War II left us with a tremendous public debt, which reached 279 billion dollars at its peak in February, 1946. Beginning in July, 1946, when war and reconversion financing had ended, we have held quite closely to the sound standard that in times of high employment and high national income, the Federal Budget should be balanced and the debt reduced. For the four fiscal years from July i, 1946, to June 30, 1950, we had a net surplus of 4.3 billion dollars. Using this surplus, and the Treasury's excess cash reserves, the debt was reduced substantially, reaching a low point of 251 billion dollars in June, 1949, and ending up at 257 billion dollars on June 30, 1950. In July of 1950, we began our rapid re- armament, and for two years held very close to a pay-as-we-go policy. But in the current fiscal year and the next, rising ex- penditures for defense will substantially outrun receipts. This will pose an imme- diate and serious problem for the new Congress. Now let me turn to another question we faced at the war's end. Would we take up again, and carry forward, the great projects of social welfare — so badly needed, so long overdue — that the New Deal had intro- duced into our national life? Would our Government continue to have a heart for the people, or was the progress of the New Deal to be halted in the aftermath of war as decisively as the progress of Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom had been halted after the first world war? This question, too, we have answered. We have answered it by doubling old age insurance benefits and extending coverage to ten million more people. We have an- swered it by increasing our minimum wage. We have answered by the three million privately constructed homes that the Fed- eral Government has helped finance since the war — and the 155 thousand units of low rent public housing placed under con- struction since 1949. We have answered with the 42 thousand new hospital beds provided since 1946 through the joint efforts of the Federal Gov- ernment and local communities. We have answered by helping eight mil- lion veterans of World War II to obtain advanced education, 196 thousand to start in business, and 64 thousand to buy farms. We have answered by continuing to help farmers obtain electric power, until today nearly 90 per cent of our farms have power line electric service. In these and other ways, we have demon- strated, up to now, that our democracy has not forgotten how to use the powers of the Government to promote the people's welfare and security. Another of the big post-war questions was this: What we would do with the Nation's natural resources — its soils and water, forests and grasslands. Would we continue the strong conservation movement of the 1930's, or would we, as we did after the First World War, slip back into the practices of monopoly, exploitation, and waste? The answer is plain. All across our country, the soil conservation movement has spread, aided by Government programs, enriching private and public lands, preserv- ing them from destruction, improving them IIl6 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] for future use. In our river basins, we have invested nearly 5 billion dollars of public funds in the last eight years — invested them in projects to control floods, irrigate farm- lands, produce low-cost power and get it to the housewives and farmers and business- men who need it. We have been vigilant in protecting the people's property — lands and forests and oil and minerals. We have had to fight hard against those who would use our resources for private greed; we have met setbacks; we have had to delay work because of defense priorities, but on the whole we can be proud of our record in protecting our natural heritage, and in using our resources for the public good. Here is another question we had to face at the war's close: Would we continue, in peace as well as war, to promote equality of opportunity for all our citizens, seeking ways and means to guarantee for all of them the full enjoyment of their civil rights? During the war we achieved great eco- nomic and social gains for millions of our fellow citizens who had been held back by prejudice. Were we prepared, in peace- time, to keep on moving toward full reali- zation of the democratic promise? Or would we let it be submerged, wiped out, in post-war riots and reaction, as after World War I? We answered these questions in a series of forward steps at every level of government and in many spheres of private life. In our armed forces, our civil service, our univer- sities, our railway trains, the residential dis- tricts of our cities — in stores and factories all across the Nation — in the polling booths as well — the barriers are coming down. This is happening, in part, at the mandate of the courts; in part, at the insistence of Federal, State and local governments; in part, through the enlightened action of private groups and persons in every region and every walk of life. There has been a great awakening of the American conscience on the issues of civil rights. And all this progress — still far from complete but still continuing — has been our answer, up to now, to those who questioned our intention to live up to the promises of equal freedom for us all. There was another question posed for us at the war's end, which equally concerned the future course of our democracy: Could the machinery of government and politics in this Republic be changed, improved, adapted rapidly enough to carry through, responsibly and well, the vast, new com- plicated undertakings called for in our time? We have answered this question, too, answered it by tackling the most urgent, most specific, problems which the war ex- perience itself had brought into sharp focus. The reorganization of the Congress in 1946; the unification of our armed services, begin- ning in 1947; the closer integration of foreign and military policy through the National Security Council created that same year; and the Executive reorganizations, before and after the Hoover-Acheson Com- mission Report in 1949 — these are landmarks in our continuing endeavor to make govern- ment an effective instrument of service to the people. I come now to the most vital question of all, the greatest of our concerns: Could there be built in the world a durable structure of security, a lasting peace for all the nations, or would we drift, as after World War I, toward another terrible disaster — a disaster which this time might be the holocaust of atomic war? That is still the overriding question of our time. We cannot know the answer yet; perhaps we will not know it finally for a long time to come. But day and night, these past eight years, we have been building for peace, searching out the way that leads most surely to security and freedom and justice in the world for us and all mankind. This, above all else, has been the task of our Republic since the end of World War II, and our accomplishment so far should give real pride to all Americans. At the very least, a total war has been averted, each day up to this hour. And at the most, we may 5:5-672—66. III7 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents already have succeeded in establishing con- ditions which can keep that kind of war from happening, for as far ahead as man can see. The Second World War radically changed the power relationships of the world. Na- tions once great were left shattered and weak, channels of communication, routes of trade, political and economic ties of many kinds were ripped apart. And in this changed, disrupted, chaotic situation, the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two strongest powers of the world. Each had tremendous human and natural resources, actual or potential, on a scale unmatched by any other nation. Nothing could make plainer why the world is in its present state — and how that came to pass — than an understanding of the diametrically opposite principles and policies of these two great powers in a war-ruined world. For our part, we in this Republic were — and are — free men, heirs of the American Revolution, dedicated to the truths of our Declaration of Independence: ". . . That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . That to secure these rights, governments are insti- tuted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Our post-war objective has been in keep- ing with this great idea. The United States has sought to use its pre-eminent position of power to help other nations recover from the damage and dislocation of the war. We held out a helping hand to enable them to restore their national lives and to regain their positions as independent, self-support- ing members of the great family of nations. This help was given without any attempt on our part to dominate or control any nation. We did not want satellites but partners. The Soviet Union, however, took exactly the opposite course. Its rulers saw in the weakened condition of the world not an obligation to assist in the great work of reconstruction, but an IIl8 opportunity to exploit misery and suffering for the extension of their power. Instead of help, they brought subjugation. They extinguished, blotted out, the national in- dependence of the countries that the military operations of World War II had left within their grasp. The difference stares at us from the map of Europe today. To the west of the line that tragically divides Europe we see nations continuing to act and live in the light of their own traditions and principles. On the other side, we see the dead uniformity of a tyrannical system imposed by the rulers of the Soviet Union. Nothing could point up more clearly what the global struggle between the free world and the communists is all about. It is a struggle as old as recorded history; it is freedom versus tyranny. For the dominant idea of the Soviet regime is the terrible conception that men do not have rights but live at the mercy of the state. Inevitably this idea of theirs — and all the consequences flowing from it — collided with the efforts of free nations to build a just and peaceful world. The "cold war" be- tween the communists and the free world is nothing more or less than the Soviet attempt to checkmate and defeat our peaceful pur- poses, in furtherance of their own dread objective. We did not seek this struggle, God forbid. We did our utmost to avoid it. In World War II, we and the Russians had fought side by side, each in our turn attacked and forced to combat by the aggressors. After the war, we hoped that our wartime col- laboration could be maintained, that the frightful experience of Nazi invasion, of devastation in the heart of Russia, had turned the Soviet rulers away from their old proclaimed allegiance to world revolution and communist dominion. But instead, they violated, one by one, the solemn agree- ments they had made with us in wartime. They sought to use the rights and privileges they had obtained in the United Nations, to Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] frustrate its purposes and cut down its powers as an effective agent of world prog- ress and the keeper of the world's peace. Despite this outcome, the efforts we made toward peaceful collaboration are a source of our present strength. They demon- strated that we believed what we proclaimed, that we actually sought honest agreements as the way to peace. Our whole moral posi- tion, our leadership in the free world today, is fortified by that fact. The world is divided, not through our fault or failure, but by Soviet design. They, not we, began the cold war. And because the free world saw this happen — because men know we made the effort and the Soviet rulers spurned it — the free nations have accepted leadership from our Re- public, in meeting and mastering the Soviet offensive. It seems to me especially important that all of us be clear, in our own thinking, about the nature of the threat we have faced — and will face for a long time to come. The measures we have devised to meet it take shape and pattern only as we understand what we were — and are — up against. The Soviet Union occupies a territory of 8 million square miles. Beyond its borders, East and West, are the nearly five million square miles of the satellite states — virtually incorporated into the Soviet Union — and of China, now its close partner. This vast land mass contains an enormous store of natural resources sufficient to support an economic development comparable to our own. That is the Stalinist world. It is a world of great natural diversity in geography and climate, in distribution of resources, in popu- lation, language, and living standards, in economic and cultural development. It is a world whose people are not all convinced communists by any means. It is a world where history and national traditions, par- ticularly in its borderlands, tend more to- ward separation than unification, and run counter to the enforced combination that has been made of these areas today. But it is also a world of great man-made uniformities, a world that bleeds its popula- tion white to build huge military forces; a world in which the police are everywhere and their authority unlimited; a world where ter- ror and slavery are deliberately administered both as instruments of government and as means of production; a world where all effec- tive social power is the state's monopoly — yet the state itself is the creature of the commu- nist tyrants. The Soviet Union, with its satellites, and China are held in the tight grip of commu- nist party chieftains. The party dominates all social and political institutions. The party regulates and centrally directs the whole economy. In Moscow's sphere, and in Peiping's, all history, philosophy, morality and law are centrally established by rigid dogmas, incessantly drummed into the whole population and subject to interpretation — or to change — by none except the party's own inner circle. And lest their people learn too much of other ways of life, the communists have walled off their world, deliberately and uni- formly, from the rest of human society. That is the communist base of operation in their cold war. In addition, they have at their command hundreds and thousands of dedicated foreign communists, people in nearly every free country who will serve Mos- cow's ends. Thus the masters of the Krem- lin are provided with deluded followers all through the free world whom they can ma- nipulate, cynically and quite ruthlessly, to serve the purposes of the Soviet state. Given their vast internal base of operations, and their agents in foreign lands, what are the communist rulers trying to do? Inside their homeland, the communists are trying to maintain and modernize huge military forces. And simultaneously, they are endeavoring to weld their whole vast area and population into a completely self- contained, advanced industrial society. They aim, some day, to equal or better the produc- tion levels of Western Europe and North 1119 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents America combined — thus shifting the bal- ance of world economic power, and war potential, to their side. They have a long way to go and they know it. But they are prepared to levy upon living generations any sacrifice that helps strength- en their armed power, or speed industrial development. Externally, the communist rulers are try- ing to expand the boundaries of their world, whenever and wherever they can. This ex- pansion they have pursued steadfastly since the close of World War II, using any means available to them. Where the Soviet army was present, as in the countries of Eastern Europe, they have gradually squeezed free institutions to death. Where post-war chaos existed in indus- trialized nations, as in Western Europe, the local Stalinists tried to gain power through political processes, politically-inspired strikes, and every available means for subverting free institutions to their evil ends. Where conditions permitted, the Soviet rulers have stimulated and aided armed in- surrection by communist-led revolutionary forces, as in Greece, Indo-China, the Philip- pines, and China, or outright aggression by one of their satellites, as in Korea. Where the forces of nationalism, inde- pendence, and economic change were at work throughout the great sweep of Asia and Africa, the communists tried to identify themselves with the cause of progress, tried to picture themselves as the friends of free- dom and advancement — surely one of the most cynical efforts of which history offers record. Thus, everywhere in the free world, the communists seek to fish in troubled waters, to seize more countries, to enslave more mil- lions of human souls. They were, and are, ready to ally themselves with any group, from the extreme left to the extreme right, that offers them an opportunity to advance their ends. Geography gives them a central position. They are both a European and an Asian power, with borders touching many of the most sensitive and vital areas in the free world around them. So situated, they can use their armies and their economic power to set up simultaneously a whole series of threats — or inducements — to such widely dispersed places as Western Germany, Iran, and Japan. These pressures and attractions can be sustained at will, or quickly shifted from place to place. Thus the communist rulers are moving, with implacable will, to create greater strength in their vast empire, and to create weakness and division in the free world, preparing for the time their false creed teaches them must come: the time when the whole world outside their sway will be so torn by strife and contradictions that it will be ripe for the communist plucking. This is the heart of the distorted Marxist interpretation of history. This is the glass through which Moscow and Peiping look out upon the world, the glass through which they see the rest of us. They seem really to believe that history is on their side. And they are trying to boost "history" along, at every opportunity, in every way they can. I have set forth here the nature of the communist menace confronting our Repub- lic and the whole free world. This is the measure of the challenge we have faced since World War II — a challenge partly military and partly economic, partly moral and partly intellectual, confronting us at every level of human endeavor and all around the world. It has been and must be the free world's purpose not only to organize defenses against aggression and subversion, not only to build a structure of resistance and salvation for the community of nations outside the iron curtain, but in addition to give expression and opportunity to the forces of growth and progress in the free world, to so organize and unify the cooperative community of free men that we will not crumble but grow stronger over the years, and the Soviet empire, not the free world, will eventually have to change its ways or fall. 1 120 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] Our whole program of action to carry out this purpose has been directed to meet two requirements. The first of these had to do with security. Like the pioneers who settled this great continent of ours, we have had to carry a musket while we went about our peaceful business. We realized that if we and our allies did not have military strength to meet the growing Soviet military threat, we would never have the opportunity to carry forward our efforts to build a peaceful world of law and order — the only environment in which our free institutions could survive and flourish. Did this mean we had to drop everything else and concentrate on armies and weapons ? Of course it did not: side-by-side with this urgent military requirement, we had to continue to help create conditions of eco- nomic and social progress in the world. This work had to be carried forward along- side the first, not only in order to meet the non-military aspects of the communist drive for power, but also because this creative effort toward human progress is essential to bring about the kind of world we as free men want to live in. These two requirements — military secu- rity and human progress — are more closely related in action than we sometimes recog- nize. Military security depends upon a strong economic underpinning and a stable and hopeful political order; conversely, the confidence that makes for economic and political progress does not thrive in areas that are vulnerable to military conquest. These requirements are related in another way. Both of them depend upon unity of action among the free nations of the world. This, indeed, has been the foundation of our whole effort, for the drawing together of the free people of the world has become a condition essential not only to their progress, but to their survival as free people. This is the conviction that underlies all the steps we have been taking to strengthen and unify the free nations during the past seven years. What have these steps been? First of all, how have we gone about meeting the require- ment of providing for our security against this world-wide challenge? Our starting point, as I have said on many occasions, has been and remains the United Nations. We were prepared, and so were the other nations of the free world, to place our reliance on the machinery of the United Nations to safeguard peace. But before the United Na- tions could give full expression to the con- cept of international security embodied in the Charter, it was essential that the five per- manent members of the Security Council honor their solemn pledge to cooperate to that end. This the Soviet Union has not done. I do not need to outline here the dreary record of Soviet obstruction and veto and the unceasing efforts of the Soviet representa- tives to sabotage the United Nations. It is important, however, to distinguish clearly between the principle of collective security embodied in the Charter and the mechanisms of the United Nations to give that principle effect. We must frankly recognize that the Soviet Union has been able, in certain in- stances, to stall the machinery of collective security. Yet it has not been able to impair the principle of collective security. The free nations of the world have retained their al- legiance to that idea. They have found the means to act despite the Soviet veto, both through the United Nations itself and through the application of this principle in regional and other security arrangements that are fully in harmony with the Charter and give expression to its purposes. The free world refused to resign itself to collective suicide merely because of the technicality of a Soviet veto. The principle of collective measures to forestall aggression has found expression in the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro, the North II2I [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents Atlantic Treaty, now extended to include Greece and Turkey, and the several treaties we have concluded to reinforce security in the Pacific area. But the free nations have not this time fallen prey to the dangerous illusion that treaties alone will stop an aggressor. By a series of vigorous actions, as varied as the nature of the threat, the free nations have successfully thwarted aggression or the threat of aggression in many different parts of the world. Our country has led or supported these col- lective measures. The aid we have given to people determined to act in defense of their freedom has often spelled the difference be- tween success and failure. We all know what we have done, and I shall not review in detail the steps we have taken. Each major step was a milepost in the developing unity, strength and resolute will of the free nations. The first was the determined and success- ful effort made through the United Nations to safeguard the integrity and independence of Iran in 1945 and 1946. Next was our aid and support to embat- tled Greece, which enabled her to defeat the forces threatening her national independence. In Turkey, cooperative action resulted in building up a bulwark of military strength for an area vital to the defenses of the entire free world. In 1949, we began furnishing military aid to our partners in the North Atlantic Community and to a number of other free countries. The Soviet Union's threats against Ger- many and Japan, its neighbors to the West and to the East, have been successfully with- stood. Free Germany is on its way to be- coming a member of the peaceful community of nations, and a partner in the common defense. The Soviet effort to capture Ber- lin by blockade was thwarted by the coura- geous Allied airlift. An independent and democratic Japan has been brought back into the community of free nations. In the Far East, the tactics of communist imperialism have reached heights of vio- lence unmatched elsewhere — and the prob- lem of concerted action by the free nations has been at once more acute and more difficult. Here, in spite of outside aid and support, the free government of China succumbed to the communist assault. Our aid has en- abled the free Chinese to rebuild and strengthen their forces on the island of Formosa. In other areas of the Far East — in Indo-China, Malaya, and the Philip- pines— our assistance has helped sustain a staunch resistance against communist insur- rectionary attacks. The supreme test, up to this point, of the will and determination of the free nations came in Korea, when communist forces invaded the Republic of Korea, a state that was in a special sense under the protection of the United Nations. The response was immediate and resolute. Under our mili- tary leadership, the free nations for the first time took up arms, collectively, to repel aggression. Aggression was repelled, driven back, punished. Since that time, communist strategy has seen fit to prolong the conflict, in spite of honest efforts by the United Nations to reach an honorable truce. The months of deadlock have demonstrated that the communists cannot achieve by persist- ence, or by diplomatic trickery, what they failed to achieve by sneak attack. Korea has demonstrated that the free world has the will and the endurance to match the communist effort to overthrow international order through local aggression. It has been a bitter struggle and it has cost us much in brave lives and human suf- fering, but it has made it plain that the free nations will fight side by side, that they will not succumb to aggression or in- timidation, one by one. This, in the final analysis, is the only way to halt the com- munist drive to world power. At the heart of the free world's defense 1 122 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] is the military strength of the United States. From 1945 to 1949, the United States was sole possessor of the atomic bomb. That was a great deterrent and protection in itself. But when the Soviets produced an atomic explosion — as they were bound to do in time — we had to broaden the whole basis of our strength. We had to endeavor to keep our lead in atomic weapons. We had to strengthen our armed forces generally and to enlarge our productive capacity — our mobilization base. Historically, it was the Soviet atomic explosion in the fall of 1949, nine months before the aggression in Korea, which stimulated the planning for our program of defense mobilization. What we needed was not just a central force that could strike back against aggres- sion. We also needed strength along the outer edges of the free world, defenses for our allies as well as for ourselves, strength to hold the line against attack as well as to retaliate. We have made great progress on this task of building strong defenses. In the last two and one half years, we have more than doubled our own defenses, and we have helped to increase the protection of nearly all the other free nations. All the measures of collective security, resistance to aggression, and the building of defenses, constitute the first requirement for the survival and progress of the free world. But, as I have pointed out, they are inter- woven with the necessity of taking steps to create and maintain economic and social progress in the free nations. There can be no military strength except where there is economic capacity to back it. There can be no freedom where there is economic chaos or social collapse. For these reasons, our national policy has included a wide range of economic measures. In Europe, the grand design of the Mar- shall Plan permitted the people of Britain and France and Italy and a half dozen other countries, with help from the United States, to lift themselves from stagnation and find again the path of rising production, rising incomes, rising standards of living. The situation was changed almost overnight by the Marshall Plan; the people of Europe have a renewed hope and vitality, and they are able to carry a share of the military defense of the free world that would have been impossible a few years ago. Now the countries of Europe are moving rapidly towards political and economic unity, changing the map of Europe in more hopeful ways than it has been changed for 500 years. Customs unions, European eco- nomic institutions like the Schuman Plan, the movement toward European political integration, the European Defense Commu- nity— all are signs of practical and effective growth toward greater common strength and unity. The countries of Western Europe, including the free Republic of Germany are working together, and the whole free world is the gainer. It sometimes happens, in the course of history, that steps taken to meet an imme- diate necessity serve an ultimate purpose greater than may be apparent at the time. This, I believe, is the meaning of what has been going on in Europe under the threat of aggression. The free nations there, with our help, have been drawing together in defense of their free institutions. In so doing, they have laid the foundations of a unity that will endure as a major creative force beyond the exigencies of this period of history. We may, at this close range, be but dimly aware of the creative surge this movement represents, but I believe it to be of historic importance. I believe its benefits will survive long after communist tyranny is nothing but an unhappy memory. In Asia and Africa, the economic and so- cial problems are different but no less urgent. There hundreds of millions of people are in ferment, exploding into the twentieth cen- tury, thrusting toward equality and inde- pendence and improvement in the hard conditions of their lives. Politically, economically, socially, things cannot and will not stay in their pre-war 1123 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents mold in Africa and Asia. Change must come — is coming — fast. Just in the years I have been President, 12 free nations, with more than 600 million people, have become independent: Burma, Indonesia, the Philip- pines, Korea, Israel, Libya, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and the three Associated States of Indo-China, now members of the French Union. These names alone are testimony to the sweep of the great force which is chang- ing the face of half the world. Working out new relationships among the peoples of the free world would not be easy in the best of times. Even if there were no Communist drive for expansion, there would be hard and complex problems of transition from old social forms, old political arrange- ments, old economic institutions to the new ones our century demands — problems of guiding change into constructive channels, of helping new nations grow strong and stable. But now, with the Soviet rulers striving to exploit this ferment for their own purposes, the task has become harder and more urgent — terribly urgent. In this situation, we see the meaning and the importance of the Point IV program, through which we can share our store of know-how and of capital to help these people develop their economies and reshape their societies. As we help Iranians to raise more grain, Indians to reduce the incidence of malaria, Liberians to educate their children better, we are at once helping to answer the desires of the people for advancement, and demonstrating the superiority of freedom over communism. There will be no quick solution for any of the difficulties of the new nations of Asia and Africa — but there may be no solution at all if we do not press forward with full energy to help these countries grow and flourish in freedom and in cooperation with the rest of the free world. Our measures of economic policy have al- ready had a tremendous effect on the course of events. Eight years ago, the Kremlin thought post-war collapse in Western Europe and Japan — with economic dislocation in America — might give them the signal to ad- vance. We demonstrated they were wrong. Now they wait with hope that the economic recovery of the free world has set the stage for violent and disastrous rivalry among the economically developed nations, struggling for each other's markets and a greater share of trade. Here is another test that we shall have to meet and master in the years imme- diately ahead. And it will take great in- genuity and effort — and much time — before we prove the Kremlin wrong again. But we can do it. It is true that economic recovery presents its problems, as does economic decline, but they are problems of another order. They are the problems of distribut- ing abundance fairly, and they can be solved by the process of international cooperation that has already brought us so far. These are the measures we must continue. This is the path we must follow. We must go on, working with our free associates, building an international structure for mili- tary defense, and for economic, social, and political progress. We must be prepared for war, because war may be thrust upon us. But the stakes in our search for peace are immensely higher than they have ever been before. For now we have entered the atomic age, and war has undergone a technological change which makes it a very different thing from what it used to be. War today between the Soviet empire and the free nations might dig the grave not only of our Stalinist op- ponents, but of our own society, our world as well as theirs. This transformation has been brought to pass in the seven years from Alamogordo to Eniwetok. It is only seven years, but the new force of atomic energy has turned the world into a very different kind of place. Science and technology have worked so fast that war's new meaning may not yet be grasped by all the peoples who would be its victims; nor, perhaps, by the rulers in the Kremlin. But I have been President of the United States, these seven years, respon- sible for the decisions which have brought our science and our engineering to their 1 124 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 7 [366] present place. I know what this develop- ment means now. I know something of what it will come to mean in the future. We in this Government realized, even before the first successful atomic explosion, that this new force spelled terrible danger for all mankind unless it were brought under international control. We promptly ad- vanced proposals in the United Nations to take this new source of energy out of the arena of national rivalries, to make it impos- sible to use it as a weapon of war. These proposals, so pregnant with benefit for all humanity, were rebuffed by the rulers of the Soviet Union. The language of science is universal, the movement of science is always forward into the unknown. We could not assume that the Soviet Union would not develop the same weapon, regardless of all our precau- tions, nor that there were not other and even more terrible means of destruction lying in the unexplored field of atomic energy. We had no alternative, then, but to press on, to probe the secrets of atomic power to the uttermost of our capacity, to maintain, if we could, our initial superiority in the atomic field. At the same time, we sought persistently for some avenue, some formula, for reaching an agreement with the Soviet rulers that would place this new form of power under effective restraints — that would guarantee no nation would use it in war. I do not have to recount here the proposals we made, the steps taken in the United Nations, striving at least to open a way to ultimate agreement. I hope and believe that we will continue to make these efforts so long as there is the slightest possibility of progress. All civilized nations are agreed on the urgency of the problem, and have shown their willingness to agree on effective measures of control — all save the Soviet Union and its satellites. But they have rejected every reasonable proposal. Meanwhile, the progress of scientific ex- periment has outrun our expectations. Atomic science is in the full tide of develop- ment; the unfolding of the innermost secrets of matter is uninterrupted and irresistible. Since Alamogordo we have developed atomic weapons with many times the ex- plosive force of the early models, and we have produced them in substantial quanti- ties. And recently, in the thermonuclear tests at Eniwetok, we have entered another stage in the worldshaking development of atomic energy. From now on, man moves into a new era of destructive power, capable of creating explosions of a new order of magnitude, dwarfing the mushroom clouds of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have no reason to think that the stage we have now reached in the release of atomic energy will be the last. Indeed, the speed of our scientific and technical progress over the last seven years shows no signs of abat- ing. We are being hurried forward, in our mastery of the atom, from one discovery to another, toward yet unforeseeable peaks of destructive power. Inevitably, until we can reach interna- tional agreement, this is the path we must follow. And we must realize that no ad- vance we make is unattainable by others, that no advantage in this race can be more than temporary. The war of the future would be one in which man could extinguish millions of lives at one blow, demolish the great cities of the world, wipe out the cultural achievements of the past — and destroy the very structure of a civilization that has been slowly and painfully built up through hundreds of generations. Such a war is not a possible policy for rational men. We know this, but we dare not assume that others would not yield to the temptation science is now placing in their hands. With that in mind, there is something I would say, to Stalin: You claim belief in Lenin's prophecy that one stage in the devel- opment of communist society would be war between your world and ours. But Lenin was a pre-atomic man, who viewed society and history with pre-atomic eyes. Some- II25 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents thing profound has happened since he wrote. War has changed its shape and its dimen- sion. It cannot now be a "stage" in the development of anything save ruin for your regime and your homeland. I do not know how much time may elapse before the communist rulers bring them- selves to recognize this truth. But when they do, they will find us eager to reach understandings that will protect the world from the danger it faces today. It is no wonder that some people wish that we had never succeeded in splitting the atom. But atomic power, like any other force of nature, is not evil in itself. Prop- erly used, it is an instrumentality for human betterment. As a source of power, as a tool of scientific inquiry, it has untold possibili- ties. We are already making good progress in the constructive use of atomic power. We could do much more if we were free to concentrate on its peaceful uses exclu- sively. Atomic power will be with us all the days of our lives. We cannot legislate it out of existence. We cannot ignore the dangers or the benefits it offers. I believe that man can harness the forces of the atom to work for the improvement of the lot of human beings everywhere. That is our goal. As a nation, as a people, we must understand this problem, we must handle this new force wisely through our democratic processes. Above all, we must strive, in all earnestness and good faith, to bring it under effective international con- trol. To do this will require much wisdom and patience and firmness. The awe-inspir- ing responsibility in this field now falls on a new Administration and a new Congress. I will give them my suppport, as I am sure all our citizens will, in whatever constructive steps they may take to make this newest of man's discoveries a source of good and not of ultimate destruction. We cannot tell when or whether the at- titude of the Soviet rulers may change. We do not know how long it may be before they show a willingness to negotiate effective 1 126 control of atomic energy and honorable settlements of other world problems. We cannot measure how deep-rooted are the Kremlin's illusions about us. We can be sure, however, that the rulers of the com- munist world will not change their basic objectives lightly or soon. The communist rulers have a sense of time about these things wholly unlike our own. We tend to divide our future into short spans, like the two-year life of this Congress, or the four years of the next Presidential term. They seem to think and plan in terms of generations. And there is, there- fore, no easy, short-run way to make them see that their plans cannot prevail. This means there is ahead of us a long hard test of strength and stamina, between the free world and the communist domain — our politics and our economy, our science and technology against the best they can do — our liberty against their slavery — our voluntary concert of free nations against their forced amalgam of "people's repub- lics"— our strategy against their strategy — our nerve against their nerve. Above all, this is a test of the will and the steadiness of the people of the United States. There has been no challenge like this in the history of our Republic. We are called upon to rise to the occasion, as no people before us. What is required of us is not easy. The way we must learn to live, the world we have to live in, cannot be so pleasant, safe or simple as most of us have known before, or confidendy hoped to know. Already we have had to sacrifice a num- ber of accustomed ways of working and of living, much nervous energy, material re- sources, even human life. Yet if one thing is certain in our future, it is that more sacrifice still lies ahead. Were we to grow discouraged now, were we to weaken and slack off, the whole struc- ture we have built, these past eight years, would come apart and fall away. Never then, no matter by what stringent means, Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 7 [366] could our free world regain the ground, the time, the sheer momentum, lost by such a move. There can and should be changes and improvements in our programs, to meet new situations, serve new needs. But to desert the spirit of our basic policies, to step back from them now, would surely start the free world's slide toward the dark- ness that the communists have prophesied — toward the moment for which they watch and wait. If we value our freedom and our way of life and want to see them safe, we must meet the challenge and accept its implications, stick to our guns and carry out our policies. I have set out the basic conditions, as I see them, under which we have been work- ing in the world, and the nature of our basic policies. What, then, of the future? The answer, I believe, is this: As we con- tinue to confound Soviet expectations, as our world grows stronger, more united, more attractive to men on both sides of the iron curtain, then inevitably there will come a time of change within the communist world. We do not know how that change will come about, whether by deliberate deci- sion in the Kremlin, by coup d'etat, by revo- lution, by defection of satellites, or perhaps by some unforeseen combination of factors such as these. But if the communist rulers understand they cannot win by war, and if we frus- trate their attempts to win by subversion, it is not too much to expect their world to change its character, moderate its aims, be- come more realistic and less implacable, and recede from the cold war they began. Do not be deceived by the strong face, the look of monolithic power that the com- munist dictators wear before the outside world. Remember their power has no basis in consent. Remember they are so afraid of the free world's ideas and ways of life, they do not dare to let their people know about them. Think of the massive effort they put forth to try to stop our Campaign of Truth from reaching their people with its message of freedom. The masters of the Kremlin live in fear their power and position would collapse were their own people to acquire knowledge, information, comprehension about our free society. Their world has many elements of strength, but this one fatal flaw: the weak- ness represented by their iron curtain and their police state. Surely, a social order at once so insecure and so fearful, must ulti- mately lose its competition with our free society. Provided just one thing — and this I urge you to consider carefully — provided that the free world retains the confidence and the determination to outmatch the best our adversary can accomplish and to demon- strate for uncertain millions on both sides of the iron curtain the superiority of the free way of life. That is the test upon all the free nations; upon none more than our own Republic. Our resources are equal to the task. We have the industry, the skills, the basic eco- nomic strength. Above all, we have the vigor of free men in a free society. We have our liberties. And while we keep them, while we retain our democratic faith, the ultimate advantage in this hard competi- tion lies with us, not with the communists. But there are some things that could shift the advantage to their side. One of the things that could defeat us is fear — fear of the task we face, fear of adjusting to it, fear that breeds more fear, sapping our faith, cor- roding our liberties, turning citizen against citizen, ally against ally. Fear could snatch away the very values we are striving to defend. Already the danger signals have gone up. Already the corrosive process has begun. And every diminution of our tolerance, each new act of enforced conformity, each idle accusation, each demonstration of hysteria — each new restrictive law — is one more sign that we can lose the battle against fear. The communists cannot deprive us of our liberties — fear can. The communists can- not stamp out our faith in human dignity — fear can. Fear is an enemy within our- II27 [366] Jan. 7 Public Papers of the Presidents selves, and if we do not root it out, it may destroy the very way of life we are so anxious to protect. To beat back fear, we must hold fast to our heritage as free men. We must renew our confidence in one another, our tolerance, our sense of being neighbors, fellow citizens. We must take our stand on the Bill of Rights. The inquisition, the star chamber, have no place in a free society. Our ultimate strength lies, not alone in arms, but in the sense of moral values and moral truths that give meaning and vitality to the purposes of free people. These values are our faith, our inspiration, the source of our strength and our indomitable determination. We face hard tasks, great dangers. But we are Americans and we have faced hard- ships and uncertainty before, we have ad- justed before to changing circumstances. Our whole history has been a steady train- ing for the work it is now ours to do. No one can lose heart for the task, none can lose faith in our free ways, who stops to remember where we began, what we have sought, and what accomplished, all together as Americans. I have lived a long time and seen much happen in our country. And I know out of my own experience, that we can do what must be done. When I think back to the country I grew up in — and then look at what our country has become — I am quite certain that having done so much, we can do more. After all, it has been scarcely fifteen years since most Americans rejected out-of-hand the wise counsel that aggressors must be "quarantined". The very concept of col- lective security, the foundation-stone of all our actions now, was then strange doctrine, shunned and set aside. Talk about adapt- ing; talk about adjusting; talk about respond- ing as a people to the challenge of changed times and circumstances — there has never been a more spectacular example than this great change in America's outlook on the world. Let all of us pause now, think back, con- sider carefully the meaning of our national experience. Let us draw comfort from it and faith, and confidence in our future as Americans. The Nation's business is never finished. The basic questions we have been dealing with, these eight years past, present them- selves anew. That is the way of our society. Circumstances change and current questions take on different forms, new complications, year by year. But underneath, the great issues remain the same — prosperity, welfare, human rights, effective democracy, and above all, peace. Now we turn to the inaugural of our new President. And in the great work he is called upon to do he will have need for the support of a united people, a confident people, with firm faith in one another and in our common cause. I pledge him my support as a citizen of our Republic, and I ask you to give him yours. To him, to you, to all my fellow citizens, I say, Godspeed. May God bless our country and our cause. Harry S. Truman note: The President's message was read aloud by clerks in both Houses of Congress and was broad- cast to foreign countries. 367 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1954. January 9, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting, with this Message, the Budget of the United States Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1954. 1 128 This Budget represents my judgment as to the amount of funds needed to carry forward our programs for the security and welfare of our people and for world peace. Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] It is based, like all those I have transmitted in previous years, on the policy that the Government should undertake to do only what is essential for the safety and well- being of the Nation, and that what must be done should be done in the most efficient manner. This Budget has been prepared under unique circumstances. It is the first Budget since the adoption of the Twentieth Amend- ment to the Constitution to be presented to the Congress by a President who will leave office a few days after its transmission. My successor will be inaugurated as President on January 20. His will be the Executive responsibility during the time when this Budget is being considered by the Congress, and his will be the responsibility for the administration of Federal programs for the period of time covered by this Budget. I have done all in my power to ease the prob- lems of transition to the new administration, including informing the President-elect, through a representative of his choice, of the background and considerations which have entered into the preparation of this Budget. However, I wish to make it clear that neither my successor in office nor any of his staff has participated in the decisions herein repre- sented. The President-elect has no respon- sibility for the amounts included in this Budget, and will be entirely free, of course, to propose changes in them. Because of the particular circumstances, there is one significant difference between this Budget and others I have transmitted. In previous years, the Budget estimates have included the cost of new legislation which I recommended to the Congress. Such a practice is a sound rule for Federal budg- eting. This year, however, I am not trans- mitting specific proposals for new legislation. Accordingly, the usual estimates of the fis- cal effects of such legislation are not in- cluded. For example, neither estimated expenditures for aid to medical education nor estimated receipts from increased postal rates are included. I still support these and certain other legislative proposals as strongly as ever, but since I will not be in office during the fiscal year 1954, I do not think it proper for me to transmit specific new legislative proposals or to budget for them. However, funds are included in this Budget to carry forward certain activities already under way which will require renewed legislative au- thority to continue into the next fiscal year, such as the programs under the Mutual Security Act and the Defense Production Act. In this Budget, I am recommending that the Congress enact 72.9 billion dollars in new authority to incur financial obligations during the fiscal year 1954. Total expendi- tures, from these funds and from balances of authorizations previously enacted, are estimated at 78.6 billion dollars. Receipts under present tax laws, which provide for the expiration of some of the post-Korean tax increases, are estimated at 68.7 billion dollars. On this basis, the deficit is esti- mated at 9.9 billion dollars. The following table shows the Budget totals for the five fiscal years 1950 through 1954. These figures show very clearly the budg- etary impact of the defense mobilization pro- gram on which we embarked after the com- munist aggression in Korea in June 1950. BUDGET TOTALS [ Fiscal years. In billions ] igjo 1951 actual actual New authority to incur obligations $50. 2 $84. 1 Expenditures 40. 1 44. 6 Receipts (under existing tax laws) 37.0 48.1 Deficit (—) or surplus (+) ""3-1 +3-5 1952. actual $91.9 1951 estimated $80.8 1954 estimated $72.9 66.1 62.. 1 74.6 68.7 78.6 68.7 -4.0 — 5-9 I -9.9 :i29 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents This program required, among other things, that we increase our active military forces by about two million men and women, equip those larger forces with new and improved weapons, and maintain them for an in- definite period. These were steps judged necessary not only to carry out the commit- ment we undertook in Korea, but also to increase our defense preparedness in the light of the continuing possibility of fighting on a much larger scale. We are now well along in this program. Our armed forces have long since reached the level of 3.6 mil- lion; the initial equipment to outfit them has been ordered, and much of it has been delivered. New obligational authority, primarily to finance the purchase of military weapons and equipment, rose sharply after the attack on Korea and reached a peak of 92.9 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1952. Since then, new obligational authority has been declin- ing. The amount recommended for the fiscal year 1954 is 20 billion dollars less than the amount enacted for 1952. Although new obligational authority is declining, expenditures are still rising. This is due to the long lead-time involved in the procurement of military equipment — the time required to design, produce, test, and deliver such complex items as planes, tanks, ships, and guns, after contracts are let. Be- cause of this long lead-time, most items of military equipment are not usually delivered and completely paid for until two or some- times three years after they are ordered. Each year from 195 1 through 1953, new obligational authority has exceeded expendi- tures, because new obligational authority represented for the most part orders being placed, and expenditures represented for the most part payments for goods being deliv- ered. In the fiscal year 1954, fewer orders will be placed, but more goods will be delivered. As a result, expenditures are expected to exceed new obligational author- ity for the first time since before Korea. Under our present defense program, mili- tary expenditures are expected to reach their peak in the fiscal year 1954 and to start declining in subsequent years. If our armed forces are stabilized at their presently ap- proved goals and if no new aggressions occur, new obligational authority and ex- penditures may be expected to level off in future years at the amounts necessary to maintain these forces and to replace current equipment with new and better items as they are developed. It is difficult to forecast with any precision the amount by which total Federal expenditures may be expected to drop in future years under these assump- tions, but it may be in the neighborhood of 15 billion dollars. In my judgment, how- ever, a drop of this magnitude cannot be ex- pected for at least two or three years. BUDGET EXPENDITURES This Budget is dominated, as the last three have been, by the cost of national security. About 73 percent of all Budget expenditures in the fiscal year 1954 will be for six major national security programs — military serv- ices, international security and foreign rela- tions, the development of atomic energy, the promotion of defense production and eco- nomic stabilization, civil defense, and mer- chant marine activities. In the fiscal year 1954 these programs will cost approximately 57.3 billion dollars. An additional 14 percent of Budget ex- penditures in 1954 will be for interest and for veterans' services and benefits. These expenditures, which will amount to approxi- mately 11 billion dollars, represent for the most part a continuing cost of World War II; in addition, they include the costs of serv- ices and benefits for the growing number of veterans of the fighting in Korea. The remaining 13 percent, or 10.3 billion dollars, will be for all other activities of the Government. Some of these activities — such as the port security program of the Coast Guard and the internal security program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation — have a II30 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] direct bearing on our national security. Others — such as our programs for agricul- ture, housing and community development, education and general research, labor, social security, welfare, and health — help to assure our continued social and economic progress and to strengthen the Nation for the long, hard period of world tension that lies ahead of us. Still others represent basic functions of Government, such as making and enforc- ing the laws, collecting taxes, and maintain- ing Federal records and property. As the following table indicates, expendi- tures for major national security programs not only dominate this Budget, but also account for most of the increase in total Budget expenditures since 1950, the last full fiscal year before the attack on Korea. BUDGET EXPENDITURES [ Fiscal years. In billions ] Program Major national security . . . . . Veterans' services and benefits Interest Other Adjustment to daily Treasury statement .... Total „ «... 40. 1 EXPENDITURE POLICY In the preparation of this Budget, every Government program — including those di- rectly concerned with national security — has been reviewed in the light of the current oudook for international developments, in the light of the heavy tax burden, and in the light of the long-term needs of the Na- tion. The recommended estimates reflect our constant effort to adjust expenditure programs to make sure they are at the mini- mum level consistent with our national ob- jectives. Proposals for military procure- ment, for example, reflect our policy of relying, wherever possible, on a continuing flow of weapons and equipment from pro- duction lines, rather than on the accumula- tion of large inventories of reserve stocks. Increased funds have been included in this Budget only for those programs where, in my judgment, a clear and definite need exists that cannot be longer deferred without im- pairing the public interest. In the case of several regulatory agencies, such as the In- terstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Ex- *9S° ipyi I9J2 1955 I9S4 actual actual actual estimated estimated $17.8 $16.4 $47-2- $53.1 $57.3 6.6 5-3 4-9 4-5 4.6 5.8 5-7 5-9 6.5 6.4 9.6 7-9 9.0 10.4 10.3 + •3 — .7 -•9 .... . . . . 44.6 66.1 74.6 78.6 change Commission, and the Federal Com- munications Commission, earlier cutbacks were so severe that steps have been taken in this Budget to restore some of them. Even in these instances, however, the policies have been strict. Funds have been provided for handling increased workloads or backlogs of unfinished work only when failure to do so would result in delays which would have to be made up later at an even greater expense, or in a serious impairment of an agency's ability to carry out the responsibilities as- signed to it by law. It would be short- sighted to do less. Because of the overriding requirements of the national security programs, many im- portant Government services to businessmen, farmers, and the public at large have been held, in recent years, to levels below those justified by our growing population and expanding economy. Rising prices have also increased the cost of Government and have reduced the actual service to the public per dollar spent just as they have reduced the purchasing power of private individuals and firms. When defense spending has declined, II31 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents we must bring these services to levels con- sistent with the long-range development of the Nation and its resources. The recommended appropriations antici- pate increases in efficiency resulting from reorganizations, improved management pro- cedures, and better programing of the work to be done. Substantial progress has been made in strengthening Federal management in the last few years so as to get more work done at less cost. This progress is reflected in this Budget, and will continue to be a factor in future Budgets. Government organization and procedures are not static. They must be continually re- viewed and modernized in order to adapt the machinery of Government to its current tasks. An examination of needed actions to improve Government organization and management is now a regular and continu- ing part of the process of preparing and administering the Federal Budget. Reor- ganization plans transmitted under the Re- organization Act of 1949 have made a number of far-reaching improvements in providing officials of the executive branch with more effective organization and more adequate authority to do their jobs. I believe it will be found to be most desirable to ex- tend the authority in that act, which expires April 1, 1953, as one of the steps needed to assure continued progress in increasing the efficiency with which the executive branch is managed. TAX POLICY I have always held that the Government's fiscal policy should aim at promoting the stable growth of our economy. This means that normally in times of high employment and rising national income the Federal Gov- ernment should operate with a balanced Budget. In the years following the end of World War II, when the economy was operating at a full-employment level, my Budget Mes- sages called for balanced budgets and debt reduction. During the four fiscal years 1947 through 1950, the Government had an over- all net surplus of 4.3 billion dollars. After the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, 1 recommended that we finance our rearma- ment effort on a pay-as-we-go basis. In re- sponse to my recommendations, the Congress raised tax rates in 1950 and again in 1951. These tax increases were substantial. They helped produce a Budget surplus in the fis- cal year 195 1, but they have not met our subsequent revenue requirements. The fiscal year 1952 ended with a deficit of 4 billion dollars. A deficit of 5.9 billion dol- lars is now estimated for the current fiscal year. An even larger deficit, 9.9 billion dollars, is estimated for the fiscal year 1954. Under present law, a number of the tax increases enacted in 1950 and 195 1 will terminate in 1953 and 1954. The excess profits tax on corporations is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1953. Under the Reve- nue Act of 1 95 1, the rate increases on in- dividuals' income will terminate on Decem- ber 31, 1953, and the increases in normal rates on corporations' income will expire on March 31, 1954. Virtually all of the excise tax rate increases under this act will also expire on March 31, 1954. The purpose of the Congress in setting termination dates was to assure early review of the tax in- creases enacted after Korea. Responsibility for this review falls on this session of the Congress. If the increases are allowed to expire as scheduled, the Government will lose about 2 billion dollars in revenue in the fiscal year 1954. The full effect of the expirations will be an annual revenue loss of approximately four times this amount. The continuing increase in expenditures for national security and the prospect of a substantial deficit in the fiscal year 1954 pose an immediate and serious problem in tax policy. While I do not wish to make any specific recommendations, I do wish to make it clear that in my judgment it would not be wise to plan for a large Budget deficit during a period when business activity, civilian em- 1132 Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 9 [367] ployment, and national income are reach- ing unprecedented heights. The course of prudence and wisdom would be to continue to strive for a balanced Budget and a pay-as- we-go policy in our rearmament program. In its consideration of the level of tax rates, I hope the Congress will also give serious consideration to improving the equity of the tax system. The injustices and loss of revenue arising out of loopholes in the tax laws should be eliminated. Confi- dence in the equity of tax laws is essential in a democracy. BUDGET RECEIPTS The following table shows the source of estimated Budget receipts for the fiscal year 1954, compared to revised estimates of receipts for the current fiscal year and actual receipts for the fiscal year 1952. The esti- mates for 1954 are based on present tax laws. BUDGET RECEIPTS [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Item ipj2 actual Direct taxes on individuals : Individual income taxes $19, 880 Estate and gift taxes 833 Direct taxes on corporations: Income and excess profits taxes 2.1,467 Excises 8, 893 Customs 550 Employment taxes: Federal Insurance Contributions Act 3, 569 Federal Unemployment Tax Act 159 Railroad Retirement Tax Act 735 Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act 10 Miscellaneous receipts 1, 803 Deduct : Appropriation to Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund . . — 3, 569 Refunds of receipts — 2., 302. Budget receipts 62., 118 1953 estimated 1954 estimated $33>55I 895 $33> 394 940 2-3, 7oo 9,795 2-3, 3°° 9,869 590 590 4,000 171 650 4,198 180 660 11 11 !>745 z, 180 — 4, 000 —4, 198 —2., 511 —2, 559 68, 697 68t 66$ BORROWING AND THE PUBLIC DEBT On the basis of the present fiscal outlook and existing tax laws, the public debt is expected to increase from 259 billion dollars at the beginning of the current fiscal year to about 264 billion dollars by June 30, 1953, and 274 billion dollars by June 30, 1954. Last spring substantial revisions both from the standpoint of increased rate and in- creased intermediate yields were announced in the savings bond program, designed to put these widely held issues on a basis more nearly comparable with alternative invest- ments. Holders of almost three-quarters of the maturing savings bonds are taking ad- vantage of the new arrangements under which interest continues to accrue on bonds not presented for cash redemption at maturity. EXPENDITURES AND AUTHORIZATIONS BY MAJOR FUNCTION The following table shows estimated expenditures and recommended new obliga- tional authority for the fiscal year 1954, classified by major function. It also com- pares estimated expenditures in the fiscal year 1954 with revised estimates for the cur- rent fiscal year and with actual expenditures in 1952. The estimates for 1954 include several hundreds of millions of dollars of receipts, authorizations, and expenditures relating to foreign credits and currencies for which no 1 133 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents EXPENDITURES AND AUTHORIZATIONS BY MAJOR FUNCTION [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Expenditures 1952 I9JS Function actual estimated Military services $39, 717 $44, 380 International security and foreign relations 5, 168 6, 035 Finance, commerce, and industry 141 458 Transportation and communication 1, 913 1, 056 Natural resources 1, 948 3, 370 Agriculture and agricultural resources 1, 045 1, 943 Labor 243 151 Housing and community development 735 757 Education and general research 171 2.72. Social security, welfare, and health 2, 491 2^ 594 Veterans' services and benefits 4, 863 4, 546 General government 1, 411 1, 385 Interest ' . . 5, 934 6, 510 Reserve for contingencies 2.5 Adjustment to daily Treasury statement . , "855 .... Total 66,145 74,593 Recom- i mended new ( obligational 1954 authority estimated for 1954 $46, 196 $4i, 535 7,861 8,011 2-75 88 1,016 1,061 4>°97 3,459 1,8x7 M55 2.68 178 509 691 188 177 2-579 2-, 563 4,5^4 4,6l7 L547 1,478 6,42-0 6,410 40 50 78, 587 71, 883 comparable figures appear in the 1952 and 1953 totals. Until now foreign credits and currencies have been available to certain agencies with- out the normal processes of budgeting. Re- cent legislation requires that foreign credits be budgeted and reported in the same man- ner as regular funds of the Government. This step is desirable in order to obtain ade- quate control over the use of such credits, to promote effective utilization of the foreign credits on hand or otherwise available in lieu of dollars, and to make full disclosure of the Government's financial operations in the Budget totals. Accordingly, this Budget includes appro- priation estimates for the dollar equivalent of the agencies' estimated use of foreign cur- rencies in 1954. The appropriations would be used to purchase foreign currencies from the Treasury as they are required for ex- penditure. These transactions will add the same amount to both Budget receipts and expenditures, and will therefore have no effect on the deficit. MILITARY SERVICES This year we are budgeting for the fourth fiscal year following the attack on Korea. During the past 30 months, we and our allies of the United Nations have been fighting and holding the communist aggressors. In addition, we have been expanding our armed forces toward larger goals — 21 Army divi- sions, 3 Marine divisions, a Navy of 408 combatant ships with air support, and an Air Force of 143 wings. This is an expensive program, but our national security depends on it. We cannot afford to lower these goals until the free world is secure against the communist menace. In order to appraise properly the budg- etary impact of our rearmament program, it is necessary to examine the four fiscal years 195 1 through 1954 as a single time span, and to bear in mind the relationship be- tween new obligational authority and ex- penditures. In the fiscal year 1951, new obligational authority for the military func- tions of the Department of Defense totaled 1134 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] 48.2 billion dollars, and in 1952 it reached 60.3 billion dollars. In the current fiscal year, it is expected to drop to 48.1 billion dollars, and I am recommending a further reduction to 41.2 billion dollars for 1954. Because of the long lead-time involved in military procurement, expenditures for most types of weapons and equipment occur many months after the Congress has enacted the authority for their purchase. Thus, as a result of the 1952 peak of new obligational authority, expenditures are expected to reach their peak in the fiscal year 1954. If we maintain the force level I am recom- mending in this Budget, expenditures for the military functions of the Department of Defense should begin to decline in the fiscal year 1955 and should continue to decline until they reach the level required to keep our armed forces in a state of readiness. On the basis of present rough estimates, that level may be in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 billion dollars annually. In addition to the military functions of the Department of Defense, the military services category includes certain support- ing activities such as the stockpiling of strategic and critical materials, the research programs of the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics, and the Selective Service System. Expenditures for all pro- grams in the military services category are estimated at 46.3 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1954. This is an increase of 1.9 billion dollars over 1953 and 6.6 billion dollars over 1952. Military personnel. — Expenditures for military personnel are for the pay, subsist- ence, clothing, and transportation of our armed forces. This Budget provides for an average strength of more than 3.6 million service men and women, an increase of more than 2.1 million since the beginning of the Korean conflict and slightly above the aver- age provided for in the 1953 Budget. Despite the slight increase in average MILITARY SERVICES [Fiscal years. In billions] New obligational authority Expenditures Cost category , program, or agency Department of Defense, military functions: Military personnel Operation and maintenance n. i Major procurement and production . . Aircraft Ships Other 11. 9 Military construction Civilian components Research and development Industrial mobilization Department-wide activities Subtotal Activities supporting military services : Stockpiling of strategic and critical mate- rials Other W3 I9S4 I9S3 1954 I9JI 19S2 esti- esti- ipji 19S2 esti- esti- actual actual mated mated actual actual mated mated $8.4 $10.8 $11.6 $11.7 $7.0 $11.0 $11.4 $11.1 11. 1 iz.4 11 1 10.3 5-4 IZ. z 9.8 10.6 (zz.8) (19.1) (19 .8) (14.O C4.9) (n.o) (16.5) (17.4) 10. 1 14.9 *3 8 8.2. 2-4 5-4 7.4 8.7 .8 i-9 7 1. 1 •4 .6 ■9 1.0 11. 9 12.. 4 5 3 4-9 2.. 1 5.0 8.z 7-7 2-4 4.0 z 3 •7 •4 1.8 2" 3 2-7 .8 •7 7 •9 •5 .6 •7 .8 I.Z i-5 1. 7 1.8 •7 1. 1 i-4 1.6 •3 .2. 1 .6 .z .z . 1 . 1 1.2. 1-5 8 1. 0 .6 1.0 1.0 1.0 48.1 60.3 48.1 41.2. *9-7 38.9 43-2. 45-4 1.9 .6 . 1 .2. •7 .8 1. 1 •9 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 . 1 0) . 1 G) Total 1 Less than 50 million dollars. 51. z 61.0 48.3 41.5 zo.5 39.7 44.4 46.3 1135 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents strength, expenditures for military personnel in the fiscal year 1954 are expected to be 200 million dollars less than in 1953 since ex- penditures in 1953 include outlays for retro- active combat-duty pay and mustering-out pay. As a result of two amendments to the 1953 Department of Defense Appropriation Act placing percentage limitations on officer grades and restricting the retirement of offi- cers, the Department has been unable to administer our military personnel program in the best interests of the Government and the men. One amendment, which limits the proportion of officers of each rank, unduly restricts the flexibility of the services in as- signing rank commensurate with respon- sibility. Apparently intended to slow down promotions of officers in the higher ranks, it has had its greatest impact on those in the lower ranks. The second amendment dis- courages the voluntary retirement of certain officers when it might be in the best long- run interests of both the Government and the officers to encourage some of these re- tirements. It has the damaging long-range effect of limiting the number of career- minded young junior officers from whom we must draw our future military leaders and on whom we must depend for the future effectiveness of our military forces. While I am in sympathy with the basic purpose of these two amendments, I believe they are do- ing more harm than good. Therefore, I believe they should be repealed as soon as possible. Operation and maintenance. — To operate and maintain the divisions, ships, and air- craft of our military establishment in the fiscal year 1954, I am recommending 10.3 billion dollars in new obligational authority. This is 800 million dollars less than the amount estimated for 1953, and 2.1 billion dollars less than the amount enacted for 1952. The decline is due primarily to the fact that the Congress has already provided a large part of the funds needed to fill the pipeline for supplying our expanded forces, to com- plete the rehabilitation of our military instal- lations, and to purchase a mobilization reserve of spare parts and soft goods. Ex- penditures for operation and maintenance are estimated at 10.6 billion dollars, which is 800 million dollars more than the estimate for 1953. The 1954 estimate makes no specific allowance for additional costs that would result from the continuation of com- bat operations in Korea. Major procurement and production. — The Congress has already authorized most of the funds needed initially to purchase aircraft, ships, vehicles, artillery, weapons, ammuni- tion, guided missiles, electronics, and other major items of military equipment for our defense buildup. A large part of this equip- ment has been placed on order and is in production. Deliveries are increasing sub- stantially. However, additional funds are required to bring us closer to our armed force goals and to replace weapons and equipment that are worn out, obsolescent, or destroyed or consumed in battle. In this Budget I am recommending 14.2 billion dollars of new obligational authority for major procurement and production, compared with 19.8 billion dollars estimated for 1953 and 29.2 billion dollars enacted for 1952. About 58 percent of my 1954 recom- mendation is for aircraft, about 34 percent is for artillery, ammunition, and other major items, and nearly 8 percent is for ship- building. Expenditures for major procurement and production, which largely reflect deliveries, are expected to reach a peak of 17.4 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1954. Under our present production plans, they should there- after begin to decline gradually toward the level necessary to keep our armed forces equipped with modern weapons. In this Budget, as in the 1953 Budget, maximum reliance is placed on maintaining a continuing flow of production along with the ability to expand that production rapidly if necessary, rather than on the accumula- tion of large reserves of weapons and equip- II36 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] ment. In general, the production of reserve stocks for full mobilization is scheduled at the minimum rate which would preserve as many of our existing military production lines as possible in operation for a long period in the future. A noteworthy exception to the application of this general principle is ammunition, for which additional funds may be required in the spring of 1953 unless it becomes clear that combat consumption will cease during the calendar year. Military construction. — To properly house, train, supply, and deploy our expanded mili- tary forces, it has been necessary to repair, rehabilitate, and construct military installa- tions from which our forces operate. For the three fiscal years 195 1 through 1953, Congress has enacted 8.7 billion dollars of new obligational authority for this purpose. An additional 700 million dollars is recom- mended in this Budget for building projects which have already been authorized by the Congress, but for which funds have not yet been provided. Almost all of this 700 mil- lion dollars is for Air Force bases in the United States and overseas. Nearly 60 per- cent of the post-Korean military construction program has been for Air Force operating bases here and abroad. These are necessary to accommodate the increased number of air wings which are being formed. The prob- lem of the need for additional authorizations is being studied by the Department of Defense. Although the new obligational authority recommended for 1954 is considerably below the amount enacted in each of the preceding three years, expenditures for military con- struction are expected to rise from 2.3 billion dollars in the current fiscal year to 2.7 billion dollars in 1954 as work already under way nears completion. Civilian components. — The civilian com- ponents of the armed forces consist of the Organized Reserve, the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, and the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. These units provide the trained nucleus around which a rapid expansion of our active mili- tary forces could be accomplished in a mini- mum time. This Budget provides for an increase in the strength of our civilian com- ponents receiving drill pay from 845,000 at the end of the fiscal year 1953 to 978,000 at the end of the fiscal year 1954, because an increasing number of men who are released from active service are becoming members of the civilian components. Research and development. — As a result of research and development work done in the past few years, our forces are now being equipped with many new types of weapons and equipment far superior to those of World War II. Additional new and im- proved weapons are now going into produc- tion, and we are making intensive efforts to perfect still others which will contribute directly to our military strength in the years immediately ahead. These new develop- ments will eventually give our forces capabil- ities far beyond those of the present. Advances in almost every field of science are being applied to weapons and techniques of warfare. These developments are complex and costly, and the time required to trans- late new ideas into practical military weap- ons is long. Our gratification in the prog- ress we are making must be sobered by the realization that parallel developments are undoubtedly under way behind the Iron Curtain. Expenditures of the Department of De- fense for research and development are esti- mated at 1.6 billion dollars in 1954, an increase of 200 million dollars over 1953. Industrial mobilization. — The industrial mobilization activities of the Department of Defense include (1) the maintenance of reserve industrial plants and tools, (2) engi- neering and management studies to improve manufacturing methods and to reduce the quantities of the scarce critical materials now being used, and (3) mobilization planning in conjunction with other agencies to insure the availability of industrial capacity which can be expanded to meet the requirements 1137 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents of total mobilization. All of these programs are essential to the maintenance of a strong mobilization base. Since Korea, our military procurement program has added to our mobilization base, and the need for separate industrial mobiliza- tion activities has thereby been reduced. However, there are still deficiencies in our capacity to swing rapidly into full-scale production of the military items needed in wartime. A study is now being made to determine the nature and extent of these deficiencies. For the purpose of filling such gaps in the mobilization base, I am recommending that 500 million dollars be appropriated to the Department of Defense to purchase the plants, tools, and productive facilities that would be needed. Most of this fund will be used to acquire tools and facilities beyond those needed for currently planned procure- ment. The requested amount will be ade- quate for the first year, but additional amounts may be needed later. A second problem of industrial readiness concerns the maintenance of existing ele- ments of the mobilization base. As the production and procurement of military equipment decline during or after the fiscal year 1954, a part of the expanded capacity for producing military items will be con- verted to civilian production, or otherwise disappear from the mobilization base. Steps should therefore be taken to prevent such loss. The cost of acquiring these facilities will be borne by this new fund in an amount not to exceed 100 million dollars as well as by regular appropriations to the Department of Defense. It should be made clear that present legis- lative authority, and the funds herein re- quested, will not meet the needs of the mobilization base outside the capacity which is directly related to the production of mili- tary items. For other elements of the base, such as certain kinds of basic industrial facil- ities, new legislation and funds may be needed. Stockpiling. — During the fiscal year 1954, it is estimated that nearly 900 million dollars worth of strategic and critical materials will be added to our stockpile. By the end of 1954 our stockpile inventory will be valued at 5.5 billion dollars in June 1952 prices. This is more than double the value of our stockpile inventory at the end of the fiscal year 1950, and represents nearly 75 percent of our total objective, which amounts to 7.4 billion dollars. INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS The Budget recommendations for inter- national security and foreign relations are designed to further the common effort of the United States and other free nations to establish the foundations for lasting peace and security. In this joint undertaking, we are helping our allies to build the strength needed by them and by us to resist the forces which jeopardize the peace and threaten our security. If this aid is to be effective, it must meet the particular and most urgent needs of each individual country. In some instances, it consists largely of the weapons necessary for the expansion of military strength. In others, it takes the form of goods, services, and the technical skills needed to help millions of people in their struggle against poverty, disease, and starva- tion— conditions which create unrest and invite subversion. By providing this assist- ance, we are helping ourselves just as much as we are helping our allies. When the members of a flood-threatened community join together to build a dike, each man's effort helps to protect his own house as well as his neighbor's. During the past two years, under the mutual security program, we have made significant progress in helping our allies to achieve greater military strength, economic growth, and political stability. I am confident that the Congress, by extending the Mutual Security Act, will make it pos- 1138 Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 9 [367] INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Recom- Expnditures mended new obligational ipj2 igss 1954 authority actual estimated estimated for 19s 4 Military and economic assistance: Present programs $5, 026 $5, 775 $5, 559 $89 Mutual security program (proposed legislation) 1, 000 7, 600 Conduct of foreign affairs : Overseas information and education, including acquisition and construction of radio facilities 99 101 113 135 Paiticipation in international organizations and other ... 143 159 179 187 Total 5,2.68 6,035 7,861 8,011 sible to continue this progress. The magnitude and duration of future grant aid programs, and the attainment of the long range objectives of our foreign eco- nomic policy, will depend on the success of efforts to increase the level of United States imports, and United States private and pub- lic investment abroad. Military and economic assistance. — This Budget includes 7.6 billion dollars in new obligational authority for the mutual secu- rity program, 1.1 billion dollars more than the Congress enacted for the fiscal year 1953. This increase is required primarily because of the urgent need to help our allies meet certain critical deficiencies in equipment and supplies for their armed forces. Another factor is the necessity of expanding our ef- forts to deal with critical economic problems in the underdeveloped areas of the world. As of November 1, 1952, we had shipped to our allies more than 3 billion dollars worth of weapons and military equipment, including 17,230 tanks and combat vehicles, 92,700 military transport vehicles, 1,403,213 small arms and machine guns, 19,843 artil- lery pieces for the ground forces, 432 naval vessels, and 2,673 aircraft. Deliveries are rising, and in the fiscal year 1954 are expected to rise still further. In Europe, economic assistance has been an indispensable factor in expanding mili- tary forces. In the underdeveloped areas of the world, our economic and technical assist- ance has been an important element in help- ing to raise food production, improve health standards, and increase the technical knowl- edge needed to build stronger economic and political institutions. Aid to Europe. — During the fiscal year 1954 our aid will enable the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to improve the combat effectiveness and increase the size of present land, naval, and air forces. A year ago, firm goals for December 1952 were set at 50 divisions, 4,000 front line operating aircraft, and 1,600 naval vessels. These goals are now being reviewed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Paris. As new units are added to the growing defense budgets of our NATO allies it be- comes increasingly important to weigh care- fully the added military strength achieved against the new economic burden which is incurred. European defense expenditures have more than doubled since Korea and are continuing to increase. In spite of this effort, the European nations are still unable to pro- vide and maintain, out of their own resources, all the complex and expensive modern weapons required by their armed forces. The mutual security program helps to provide the crucial margin of resources they need. An increasing volume of the required weapons and equipment is being purchased in Europe under United States contract. This offshore procurement is essential to "39 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents the expansion of military production capac- ity in Europe. Such capacity will not only increase the ability of our European allies to provide their own weapons in the years ahead, but also will support prolonged com- bat operations in the event of aggression. During the fiscal year 1952, contracts for offshore procurement totaled 621 million dollars. In the current fiscal year, this amount is expected to nearly double. This Budget assumes a further increase in the fiscal year 1954. Economic aid will be needed by several European countries. France will need this type of assistance in order to meet her NATO commitments and still continue her fight against the communist guerrillas in Indochina. The United Kingdom also will need economic assistance to carry forward her expanded defense effort in the face of a severe drain on her dollar reserves. Some economic aid also will be needed by other European nations to enable them • to fill critical gaps in the NATO defenses. Assistance to other areas of the free world. — In areas outside of Europe there are many friendly nations, containing nearly half of the earth's population and much of its material wealth, which are struggling against conditions that threaten their con- tinued existence as free nations. Our eco- nomic and technical assistance is helping the people of these nations to help themselves — to develop the economic and political strength required to combat the threat of communist imperialism. Where necessary, we are also supplying military aid to help these nations resist aggression and thereby secure time for the economic changes which will make them less vulnerable to subversion. In the Middle East, we are assisting in the relief of Arab refugees through our contribu- tion to the United Nations refugee agency. Point Four technical assistance is being pro- vided most countries in the Middle East to help them expand and strengthen their econ- omies. In some instances, notably Israel and certain Arab states, this technical assist- ance is supplemented by limited economic aid. In Indochina, our military assistance has been a crucial factor in strengthening the troops of France and the Associated States of Viet Nam, Laos, and Cambodia in their fight against a powerful, communist-led revolt. The security of the island of For- mosa has been markedly increased. The communist-led uprising in the Philippines has been reduced to small proportions through the energetic efforts of the Philip- pine Government, aided by United States military equipment. Further military as- sistance is needed if these countries are to continue their resistance to aggression. Our economic assistance to India and to other nations in Asia is helping them to con- tinue the progress they have already made toward alleviating famine and disease — the necessary first steps in their efforts to im- prove the living conditions of their peoples. These countries can make a vital contribu- tion to the strength of the free world if their economic development programs are given the extra momentum which outside aid can provide. In Latin America the United States has helped finance economic development mainly through loans from the Export-Im- port Bank. This area also offers attractive fields for private United States investment, which in the calendar year 195 1 increased by nearly 200 million dollars. In order to further economic development in Latin America, the United States has for a num- ber of years extended technical assistance on a grant basis for certain projects undertaken jointly with Latin American governments. Conduct of foreign affairs. — The efficient functioning of our diplomatic and consular missions, and our extensive participation in the United Nations and other international organizations, constitute vital links in the chain of international security which we are seeking to forge. Expenditures for the conduct of foreign affairs in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated 1 140 Harry S. Truman, igtf Jan. 9 [367] at 302 million dollars, an increase of 42 mil- lion dollars over the current year. This in- crease is due, first, to the fact that the dollar equivalent of foreign currencies spent by the United States is included in the 1954 estimate for the first time; second, to the added workload of investigations and clear- ances required by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in connection with the issuance of visas and passports in the United States and at our overseas missions; and third, to an anticipated increase in ex- penditures for construction of overseas radio facilities for the "Voice of America." I have repeatedly emphasized the impor- tance of our overseas information and education program. In this Budget I am recommending appropriations of 135 mil- lion dollars to continue and expand this vital work. FINANCE, COMMERCE, AND INDUSTRY The vast expansion of our productive capacity which we have achieved since Korea would not have been possible without the authority granted under the Defense Production Act. To assure further progress toward our mobilization goals, I believe it is necessary to continue this legislation through the fiscal year 1954, including authority to allocate critical materials and equipment, provide incentives for the expansion of de- fense production, and stabilize prices, wages, and rents. No new obligational authority will be needed to provide financial assistance for expanding defense production, but 54 million dollars has been included in this Budget for administering production and stabilization and export controls. More than 90 percent of the 1954 expendi- tures for finance, commerce, and industry programs will be for the promotion of de- fense production and economic stabilization. These expenditures are expected to decline in 1954 as military and economic expansion goals are achieved. Expansion of defense production. — Under the authority of the Defense Production Act and related legislation, the Government has offered a wide variety of incentives to private industry to expand defense production and to broaden the economic base for any future mobilization effort. Producers of aluminum, copper, machine tools, and other critical commodities have received long-term pur- chase commitments totaling about 3.5 billion dollars to guarantee markets for the out- put of their new facilities, and the Govern- ment has bought 1.5 billion dollars of scarce materials for resale to private business. In addition, nearly 400 million dollars in loan FINANCE, COMMERCE, AND INDUSTRY [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) I9S2 Program or agency actual Promotion of defense production and economic stabilization : Expansion of defense production $12.8 Production and stabilization controls and other: Present programs 148 Proposed legislation Business loans and guarantees (Reconstruction Finance Corpo- ration) — 37 Promotion or regulation of trade and industry 2.6 Promotion or regulation of financial institutions — 14 Total 2.41 1953 estimated $32-0 107 4 — 4 2.6 *9S4 estimated Recom- mended new obliga- tional authority for 1954 $100 2. 50 $54 — 10 2.8 2.8 5 6 2-75 55-672—66 75 II4I [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents commitments have been made, as well as grants for the exploration of mineral re- sources, for the subsidization of high-cost production, and for the purchase of equip- ment to be leased to defense contractors. The transactions already approved total about 6 billion dollars, and additional trans- actions totaling 2 billion dollars have been authorized. Since most of this assistance either will not involve Government expendi- tures or will be repaid, the net ultimate cost is expected to be less than 800 million dol- lars. In addition, a substantial volume of private defense production loans have been guaranteed and large investments in defense facilities have been stimulated by permitting accelerated amortization of these investments for tax purposes. Budget expenditures for expansion of de- fense production in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated at 200 million dollars, primarily from commitments already made. Since much of the planned expansion has been completed, new commitments are expected to decline substantially. Small business. — The Small Defense Plants Administration, the Department of Commerce, and other Federal agencies are helping small businesses to make their full contribution to the defense effort. Under an agreement between the Small Defense Plants Administration and the Department of De- fense, more than 200 million dollars in de- fense contracts has already been reserved exclusively for small firms. The total amount of defense contracts going to small business is, of course, substantially larger. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation has made many loans to small businesses which have not been able to obtain private credit. Nearly 300 of these loans, amount- ing to 37 million dollars, have been made upon recommendation of the Small Defense Plants Administration. Business loans and guarantees. — New lending activity under the regular business loan authority of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation has been sharply reduced from the levels prevailing before Korea. The 1954 Budget assumes no significant increase in new loans. Accordingly, the Corporation plans to close a number of local offices, maintaining only small information units to provide advice and assistance to loan applicants. TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION Federal programs in the fields of trans- portation and communication are designed to help assure that these important services are adequate to meet the needs of a peace- time economy, as well as possible mobiliza- tion needs in the event of war. In carrying out these programs, the Government pro- vides facilities and services which private enterprise cannot suitably supply, grants sub- sidies where authorized, and regulates eco- nomic and safety aspects of transportation and communications operations. In the fis- cal year 1954, expenditures for these pro- grams are estimated at 2 billion dollars, or 40 million dollars below the level for 1953. This reduction is due mainly to an expected decline in ship construction expenditures. Merchant marine. — Through subsidies for ship construction and operation, the Government helps to maintain an active maritime industry adequate to the needs of defense and commerce. In recent years, this continuing subsidy program has been supplemented by emergency measures aris- ing from defense mobilization needs. The Maritime Administration, for example, is building 35 cargo ships of advanced design to meet special defense requirements for high speed ocean transportation. This pro- gram will be largely completed during the fiscal year 1954. The reduction in expendi- tures for this emergency program will be partly offset by the cost of building other vessels, which I believe should be started in the fiscal year 1954. An appropriation of 108 million dollars is recommended for construction of four passenger-cargo ships needed for commercial operation on essen- tial trade routes, and an appropriation of 1 1 million dollars for the construction of a pro- II42 Harry S. Truman, ig$3 Jan. 9 [367] TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) 1952 Program or agency actual Promotion of merchant marine: Maritime Administration $129 Inland Waterways Corporation 1 Provision of navigation aids and facilities: Coast Guard 2.05 Corps of Engineers 106 Panama Canal Company ~~x9 Provision of highways : Bureau of Public Roads 447 Alaska roads and other Z3 Promotion of aviation (Civil Aeronautics Administration) . . 170 Postal service (deficit) 740 Regulation of transportation 18 Other services to transportation — 4 Regulation of communication 7 Total 1, 92.3 1953 estimated $2-35 \954 estimated M4 no z 573 2.1 167 666 17 *5 6 $150 Recom- mended new obliga- tional authority for 19s 4 $167 2.46 "3 3 590 ZZ I78 669 16 2.46 6l8 2.2. 163 66s 16 31 1, 056 z, 016 z, 061 totype high-speed tanker incorporating design features important for defense opera- tions. Experience gained from the proto- type project will enable the Maritime Ad- ministration to expand construction of this type of ship rapidly in the event of a future emergency. Since the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, the emergency operation of Government- owned cargo ships by the National Shipping Authority has helped to overcome a world- wide shortage of shipping capacity. As the shortage of private capacity has eased, the Government has steadily withdrawn from this operation, and has returned its ships to inactive status in the reserve fleet. By the end of the fiscal year 1954, only about 50 ships will remain in active operation under this program, as compared to a maximum of 538 during the fiscal year 1952. This Budget includes funds to maintain the reserve fleet in a condition to meet any future emergency. Navigation aids and facilities. — Construc- tion of navigation facilities by the Corps of Engineers is limited in this Budget to proj- ects already under way, and to those which should not be deferred any longer in view of national defense requirements or essential civilian needs. To permit the efficient han- dling of essential water-borne traffic, five new starts are recommended, including the Warrior River Lock and Dam in Alabama for the replacement of obsolete and struc- turally unsound locks, and harbor improve- ments at New York, Duluth-Superior, Red- wood City, California, and Pordand, Maine. In addition, an extension of the existing sea wall at the Galveston harbor project will be started to protect a highly developed urban area. These new projects will involve a total cost of 42 million dollars, of which an estimated 4 million dollars will be spent in the fiscal year 1954. Maintenance activity on existing projects is being held to mini- mum levels required to permit continued operation and prevention of excessive deterioration. Highways. — Federal assistance for high- way improvement is provided principally through grants to State and local govern- ments. Construction activity, which had been retarded by the steel shortage and other "43 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents factors, has expanded considerably in recent months. As a result, Federal-aid expendi- tures for highway construction are expected to increase from 417 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 to 511 million dollars in 1953, and 540 million dollars in 1954. The level of highway grants in any given year is determined by legislative authoriza- tions previously enacted by the Congress and by the volume of State and local construc- tion activity on Federal-aid road systems. Therefore there is little control over the ex- penditure level of this program through the Budget process. For example, the funds included in this Budget for the fiscal year 1954 represent merely an estimate of the grants that will be required to meet commit- ments incurred under the Federal- Aid High- way Act of 1950. The Highway Act of 1952 increased the annual authorization from 500 million dollars to 575 million dollars and will cause expenditures to increase in the fiscal years 1955 and 1956. In addition to Federal-aid highway grants, the Bureau of Public Roads will spend 50 million dollars in the fiscal year 1954 for other highway programs, such as forest high- ways and access roads to defense plants, mili- tary installations, and sources of strategic materials. Aviation. — Despite major technological and financial gains in recent years, the avia- tion industry is still in a developmental stage, and continues to need substantial Fed- eral assistance in order to realize its full potential growth. Such aid is provided principally through the Federal airways pro- gram, grants-in-aid for airport construction, and airline subsidies. In keeping with the general restriction on public works activity during this emergency, airport construction grants to State and local governments have been curtailed in recent years. With the continued growth of air traffic, serious airport inadequacies have developed. To permit increased Federal as- sistance for the most urgently needed proj- ects, it is recommended that new obligational authority for this program be increased from the 14 million dollars enacted for the fiscal year 1953 to 30 million dollars for 1954. Subsidies for airline operation are now merged with compensation for carrying mail, and are included in postal expenditures. However, recent studies by the Civil Aero- nautics Board provide for the first time an official estimate of the cost of this subsidy program. For the fiscal year 1954, it is estimated that airline subsidies will amount to 71 million dollars, or slightly more than half of the total air mail payments. Postal service. — With presently authorized rates, the postal deficit for the fiscal year 1954 is estimated at 669 million dollars, about the same as in 1953. Unless postal rates are increased, the fiscal year 1954 will be the sixth consecutive year in which the postal deficit will exceed one- half billion dollars. The largest part of these deficits results from the grossly in- adequate postal rates being charged for magazines and other second-class mail, and for advertising circulars and other third-class mail. I have repeatedly urged the Congress to relieve the taxpayers of this unnecessary burden by increasing postal rates sufficiently to reduce the postal deficit to the cost of handling Government mail, airline subsidies and other items which are properly charge- able to general tax revenues — a cost in the neighborhood of 170 million dollars. Regulation. — Recent reductions in the ap- propriations for the regulatory agencies — particularly the Interstate Commerce Com- mission and the Federal Communications Commission — have seriously impaired their ability to carry out the responsibilities as- signed to them by law. The administrative expenditures of these agencies are small in relation to the importance of their activities to the Nation's economy. This Budget pro- vides moderate increases for these agencies to enable them to overcome serious backlogs of pending cases, and to deal more effectively with emerging new problems. 1 144 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] NATURAL RESOURCES Expenditures for natural resources pro- grams in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated at 4.1 billion dollars, an increase of 727 million dollars over the current fiscal year and 1.1 billion dollars over 1952. Almost all of this increase is in the atomic energy program, which will account for two-thircls of the expenditures for natural resources in 1954. Other major expenditures will be for flood control, irrigation, and multiple-pur- pose river basin development, including related power facilities. The remaining expenditures will be largely for the man- agement and development of the national forests, parks, and public lands, and for our mineral resources programs. The money we spend for the orderly con- servation, development, and use of our natural resources represents a sound invest- ment. In many cases the activities are wholly or partially self-liquidating. But what is more important, they contribute to our military strength and to long-range eco- nomic progress. They are prerequisite in many fields to the needed expansion of private investment. While exercising the utmost economy in these programs, I believe we should allow for some work made urgent by the continuing drain on our resource base and by the postponement of needed devel- opment during and since World War II. Atomic energy. — Ten years ago, scientists working at the University of Chicago under Federal sponsorship brought about the world's first nuclear chain reaction. Since then, our efforts in the development of atomic energy have of necessity been devoted primarily to meeting the needs of national security. Two major expansions of facilities for the production of fissionable materials and atomic weapons have been authorized by the Congress since the attack on Korea. The first was authorized in the fiscal year 195 1 and the second early in the fiscal year 1953. The rise in atomic energy expendi- tures results largely from construction work on the new facilities. As a result of this ex- pansion, our ability to meet the threat of aggression will be significantly increased. The new obligational authority which I NATURAL RESOURCES [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Recom- mended new obli- Expenditures gational I9J2 * 1953 1954 authority 1 actual estimated estimated for 19s 4 $1, 670 $i, 000 $2, 700 $1, 997 Program or agency Atomic energy Land and water resources : Corps of Engineers: Flood control and multiple-purpose projects 487 499 495 551 Department of the Interior: Bureau of Reclamation: Irrigation and multiple-purpose projects 149 Power transmission agencies 61 Indian land resources 30 Bureau of Land Management and other 10 Tennessee Valley Authority 185 Department of State and other 16 Forest resources 95 Mineral resources 56 Fish and wildlife resources 30 Recreational us>e of resources 33 General resource surveys and other 2.6 Total ... 2., 948 3, 370 4, 097 3, 459 2.2.6 2.19 2-35 70 81 80 40 42- 42- J5 16 16 2.31 M3 2-54 J9 *9 16 104 106 106 65 59 56 38 38 35 34 39 39 18 3° 3i 1 145 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents am recommending for 1954 is substantially less than the amount enacted for the current fiscal year, because the bulk of the construc- tion funds needed to finance the expansion programs has already been provided. How- ever, I am recommending an increase in funds for operations. These funds will pro- vide for increases in our reserve of atomic weapons and for the development and test- ing of improved weapons. I am also recom- mending an increase in funds for the devel- opment of atomic power for naval ships. The keel of the first nuclear-powered subma- rine was laid last summer. The funds rec- ommended for aircraft reactor research will enable this program to proceed at an effective pace. Research in the peacetime uses of atomic energy shows steady progress. We have de- veloped new techniques in medical research, and substantial progress has been made in the fields of physics, chemistry, and biology. This research will continue in 1954. This Budget also provides for continuing research in the development of atomic reactors for the production of electric power — a program which promises to have a major impact on future power developments. Land and water resources. — In the fiscal year 1954, the Federal Government will spend 1.1 billion dollars for the develop- ment of land and water resources. More than half of this amount will be for the 133 river basin development projects and units now under construction by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers. Much of this work is multiple-purpose de- velopment for irrigation, flood control, navigation, and hydroelectric power, creat- ing substantial benefits for industry and agriculture and making an important con- tribution to defense. Seven flood control projects and seven irrigation projects or units will be substantially completed during the year. The major part of the task of developing our river basins is still ahead of us. I believe we should no longer defer certain flood con- trol and power projects which we have re- peatedly postponed since the beginning of World War II. I am therefore recommend- ing funds in the 1954 Budget for starting construction on eight new projects and five additions to existing projects, where plan- ning is for the most part well advanced and where there is clear economic justification. This new work is required to protect im- portant areas which are highly vulnerable to floods, or to meet defense or essential civilian power needs in critical shortage areas. The ultimate cost of these new proj- ects and features is estimated at 325 million dollars, of which about 16 million dollars will be spent in the fiscal year 1954. Funds also have been included in this Budget for advance planning of some high priority projects already authorized by the Congress. Six of the new projects I am recommend- ing are for flood control. These include Toronto Reservoir in Kansas, and five local protection works at Wheeling-Benwood on the Ohio, Sny Basin in Illinois, Lake Pont- chartrain in Louisiana, Cape Girardeau in Missouri, and on the Little Missouri River near Murfreesboro, Arkansas. This Budget also includes funds to enable the Tennessee Valley Authority to start construction of a steam electric plant in the western part of the system, and to begin installation of additional units in the Kings- ton and John Sevier steam electric plants. These facilities are required to meet the growing power needs of the area for defense, industrial, and domestic purposes. I also recommend that construction be started on Ice Harbor Lock and Dam in the Pacific Northwest and that work begin on the in- stallation of power facilities in three reclama- tion projects. These are the Deer Creek power plant of the Provo River project in Utah, the American Falls power division of the Minidoka project in Idaho, and the Roza power plant in the Yakima project in Washington. I also believe that the Con- gress should authorize the Hells Canyon power project in the Pacific Northwest. 1 146 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] The situation regarding the St. Lawrence project is somewhat different now from what it has been. When the last Congress did not approve the 1941 Canadian-United States agreement calling for joint construction of both the seaway and power phases of the project, Canada and the United States pro- ceeded with alternate arrangements, under which the main river control works necessary for power development would be built by appropriate entities in the two countries, and Canada would build the necessary ad- ditional works to provide a deep waterway between Montreal and Lake Erie on the Canadian side of the international boundary. As I have repeatedly informed the Congress, I regard these alternate arrangements as much less desirable than the 1941 agreement but in the absence of congressional action they represent the only way to get the project built. The alternate arrangements are well along. The International Joint Commission has approved the plans for the main dams and control structures in the International Rapids section of the St. Lawrence River. The Province of Ontario is ready to construct the Canadian share of these works. Applica- tions are pending before the Federal Power Commission for a license to build the United States share. The Government of Canada is prepared to construct the waterway. Under these circumstances, the Canadian Government have informed us that they consider it no longer practicable to revert to the 194 1 agreement. I believe, however, that there is still an opportunity for the United States to join, as we should have long ago, in building the St. Lawrence seaway. If the new adminis- tration and the new Congress propose practi- cal arrangements for sharing the cost and the construction of the seaway, I believe the Canadians will, even at this late date, admit us to partnership in the seaway. I hope very strongly that this will be done, for it is clearly in the best interest of both countries that this important waterway along our common boundary should be built and controlled by both countries together. Water resources policy. — In the past few years I have frequently informed the Con- gress of the need for new concepts and procedures to modernize the outdated ways of handling our water resources develop- ment. I have supported efforts to plan and operate water resources projects on a regional basis. From time to time I have reported to the Congress that certain projects failed to meet standards for sound Federal invest- ment, and have indicated that present Fed- eral law is in need of clarification or revision. In 1950, 1 established the Water Resources Policy Commission to examine these prob- lems and report their findings to me. At my request, the Bureau of the Budget has been making an intensive study of the Com- mission's findings, recommendations, and legislative proposals, working with repre- sentatives of other Federal agencies and con- sulting with State and interstate bodies and private associations. Also at my request, the Director of the Budget has recently established uniform standards and procedures to be used in re- viewing proposed water resources programs and projects. These guides will strengthen and improve Executive Office review of water resources development proposals. However, major changes must be made in present Federal legislation before up-to-date policies for comprehensive development of water resources can be made fully effective. I also suggest that the Congress may wish to study its own machinery for dealing with water and related land resources programs in order to provide a sounder basis for con- sideration of interrelated, multiple-purpose programs. A year ago, I established a Missouri Basin Survey Commission to study the policies and organizational problems involved in the water resources development of this basin, the scene of two serious floods within the past two years. The forthcoming report of this Commission should make a substantial 1147 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents contribution to the sound program planning and improved administration needed for the balanced development of this large basin. AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Our agricultural programs are designed primarily to achieve three related goals: first, to preserve a healthy farm economy; second, to conserve and improve our soil resources; and third, to assist farmers in attaining the high level of production necessary to meet the food and clothing needs of our people. Net expenditures for agricultural programs in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated at 1.8 billion dollars, 116 million dollars lower than the estimate for the current fiscal year. Stabilization of farm prices and income. — Expenditures for stabilization of farm prices and income are made under the agricultural price-support program, the International Wheat Agreement, the permanent appro- priation for removal of surplus agricultural commodities, the Sugar Act, and the Fed- eral crop insurance program. Net expenditures for price support, made by the Commodity Credit Corporation, represent primarily the excess of outlays for loans and purchases over loan repayments and proceeds from sales of inventories. Whether the Corporation has net receipts or net expenditures in any particular fiscal year depends mainly on factors affecting the supply and demand for commodities under price support — such as the acreage planted, weather conditions, food needs in this coun- try and abroad, and general economic con- ditions. Estimated expenditures of 729 mil- lion dollars in 1954, including the costs of the International Wheat Agreement, are 72 million dollars below the current estimate for 1953. This is due largely to an expected decline in outlays for wheat, offset in part by increased outlays for corn. The substantial change between the net receipts in 1952 and the large estimated expenditures in 1953 is accounted for mainly by the increase in corn and wheat production and the decrease in wheat exports between the two years. The present International Wheat Agree- AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Program or agency Stabilization of farm prices and farm income: Price support, supply, and purchase programs (including the International Wheat Agreement) Removal of surplus agricultural commodities Sugar Act Federal crop insurance Agricultural production programs Financing farm ownership and operation : Farm Credit Administration and agencies Farmers' Home Administration Disaster loans Financing rural electrification and rural telephones Agricultural land and water resources : Agricultural conservation program (Production'and'Market- ing Administration) Soil Conservation Service, flood prevention, and other . . . Research and other agricultural services Total Net expenditures or net receipts ( — ) 1952 ips ipj4 actual estimated estimated -$70 38 60 7 10 9- 167 13 2.44 174 67 *43 $801 67 65 6 10 70 *73 2.2. 2-33 2-75 74 J47 $72.9 75 65 5 49 *75 ~5 2-39 2-54 79 J54 Recom- mended new obliga- tional authority for 1954 $2.81 *73 65 49 *75 2.09 2-52. 82. !52- >o45 *>943 1,82.7 .455 1 148 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] ment expires on July 31, 1953. Further negotiations for its extension will be under- taken this month. This Budget assumes that United States participation in the Agree- ment will be continued. Financing farm ownership and opera- tion.— Agricultural credit programs sup- plement private credit sources. The loan programs of the Farmers' Home Adminis- tration help new farmers and low-income farmers unable to obtain credit from other sources to develop and operate efficient family-size farm units. Despite the numer- ous applications for these loans, other budg- etary requirements impel me to recommend that the program be kept to approximately the same level as in the fiscal year 1953. The programs supervised by the Farm Credit Administration — including the activi- ties of the Federal land banks, Federal inter- mediate credit banks, production credit corporations, and banks for cooperatives — are also directed toward achieving more efficient family-size farm operations, and toward the development of farmers' cooper- atives. Financing rural electrification and rural telephones. — The rural electrification pro- gram has made great strides since its incep- tion in 1935. Less than 11 percent of all farms had the benefit of central station elec- tric service in that year; less than 12 percent were without this service on June 30, 1952. The loan program which I am recommend- ing for rural electrification is 30 million dollars less than in 1953, but it allows 135 million dollars for further progress toward bringing electricity to the Nation's farms. The 1950 census showed that only 38 percent of our farms had telephones — a smaller percentage than in 1920. Further- more, many farms with telephones had un- reliable service. I am therefore recommend- ing an increase of 30 million dollars in the loan program for rural telephones. Conservation of agricultural land and water resources. — From the long-run view, conservation of our soil resources is the most important of our agricultural goals. With- out adequate conservation measures, neither a high level of production nor a healthy farm economy can be long maintained. For this reason I recommend that the advance authorization for the agricultural conservation payments program in the crop year 1954 be continued at the 250-million- dollar level authorized by the Congress for the 1953 crop year. I am also recommend- ing an increase of 2 million dollars in the Soil Conservation Service appropriation to provide technical services to new soil con- servation districts, which are being estab- lished at the rate of about 125 each year. This is the minimum program which I feel is compatible with the sound management of our soil resources. Effective soil and water conservation is an indispensable part of our Nation's efforts to prevent and control floods. By increasing the amount of water held on the land on which it falls, by slowing the rate of run- off, and by controlling the course which the water takes in major watersheds, we not only prevent loss and improve the productivity of the soil, but we also lessen the danger of flood damage and siltation on the main streams. Thus far, however, flood preven- tion efforts of this kind in the upper reaches of our rivers have generally lagged behind the flood control work we have been doing on the main streams. For that reason this Budget recommends appropriations of 22 million dollars to accelerate upstream flood prevention work, compared with 8 million dollars in the current fiscal year. Fourteen million dollars of the total amount recom- mended for 1954 will be allotted to the 11 watersheds on which work was begun in 1947; 8 million dollars will be for work to be started on seven new watersheds and for investigations and surveys. The com- mencement of work on the new watersheds is recommended because it will not only have important flood prevention and conservation benefits, but also because it will enhance the value of downstream projects constructed by the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and non-Federal interests. 55_672^— m 1 149 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents The 18 watersheds on which work is either being done or is proposed in this Budget represent only a small fraction of the agri- cultural and forest lands on which work needs to be done. Research and other agricultural services. — Expenditures for research and other continu- ing basic services for agriculture, such as extension work and insect and pest control, are expected to increase from 147 million dollars in the fiscal year 1953 to 154 million dollars in 1954. This is due largely to construction of the laboratory for research on foot-and-mouth disease for which the Congress appropriated funds last year. Also, I am recommending increases in a few of the most essential research activities, such as the Federal grant to State experiment stations, marketing research under the Agri- cultural Marketing Act, and research on plants and animals and on insect and disease control. The labor programs of the Federal Gov- ernment help to promote the effective use of our manpower resources, which is necessary for the strengthening of our military defenses and for the continued vigorous growth of our economy. These programs furnish basic economic protection to the working force against the hazards of unemployment, safe- guard workers against substandard wages and working conditions, bring together the job opportunity and the job seeker, and speed the movement of manpower into defense industries. In the fiscal year 1954, expenditures for labor programs are estimated at 268 million dollars. Eighty percent of this amount will be for direct grants to the States for the administration of employment service and unemployment compensation programs, in- cluding the recently established unemploy- ment compensation program for veterans. Increases in these grants will account for most of the rise in labor expenditures over 1953. Small increases are recommended to strengthen Federal labor-management rela- tions activities and to enable the Department of Labor to cooperate with the States in finding more effective ways to deal with the distressing economic and social problems of migratory farm workers and their families. In addition, increases in appropriations for employment service, industrial safety, and apprentice training programs are recom- mended to enable the Department to con- tinue work previously financed through a special appropriation for defense production activities. Placement and unemployment compensa- tion administration. — Part of the estimated increase in grants to the States for adminis- tration of unemployment compensation is due to changes in legislation. The Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 pro- vides for unemployment compensation pay- ments to veterans who do not find work after release from the armed forces. These payments are administered through State employment security agencies under agree- ments with the Secretary of Labor. An- other factor in the increase is that the cost of administering the Federal-State unem- ployment compensation program is greater because State salary rates continue to in- crease and the expanded coverage under State laws results in more claims for unem- ployment compensation even though the general level of unemployment remains low. Finally, experience now indicates that a higher claims load than was assumed in the last Budget will develop in 1953 and continue in 1954, as a result of temporary unemployment due to industry-by-industry adjustments. These increased workloads, which could not be foreseen at the time the 1953 Budget was prepared, will require a supplemental appropriation tentatively estimated at 6.7 million dollars for grants to the States in the fiscal year 1953. Although some State unemployment com- pensation programs have been strengthened by extending coverage, there is still need for 1 150 Harry S. Truman, igtf Jan. 9 [367] [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Expenditures Program or agency Placement and unemployment compensation administration : Department of Labor Railroad Retirement Board Defense production activities: Department of Labor . . . Labor standards and training: Department of Labor Mine safety (Department of the Interior and other) . . Labor relations Labor information, statistics, and general administration . Total 1 Less than one-half million dollars. 195* actual $192 10 2. I9S5 I9S4 estimated estimated M3 $201 11 2. J3 5 13 7 252 $115 11 CO 14 6 7 268 Recom- mended new obli- gational authority for 19s 4 $2.2.5 14 6 J5 7 2-78 basic improvements in the Federal-State system along the lines I have previously recommended. More attractive job opportunities in in- dustry for the domestic labor force make necessary the recruitment of additional workers from Mexico for seasonal farm employment. These workers are brought in under conditions which protect them from exploitation and protect the employment opportunities and labor standards of available United States workers. About 275,000 Mexican workers will be needed to meet farm production requirements in 1954. Legislation authorizing such recruitment expires on December 31, 1953. I believe it will be necessary to continue this program. Labor standards and training. — Increasing defense production has reversed a down- ward trend in accidents on the job. In 195 1, more than 2 million workers were injured, resulting in a loss of 140,000 man-years of working time. To reduce these individual tragedies with their accompanying losses to national production, the Department of Labor is planning to intensify its safety training program in cooperation with safety organizations, private industry, and State and other Federal agencies. Provision also is made in this Budget for enforcement of the recently enacted Coal Mine Safety Act. The Bureau of Apprenticeship will con- tinue to encourage and assist in establishing training programs for apprentices needed to meet critical shortages in skilled occupations essential to defense production. Greater emphasis will be given to general programs for training semiskilled and unskilled work- ers on the job to increase their productivity and skills in a wide variety of defense pro- duction occupations. The report of the Commission on Migra- tory Labor in 195 1 pointed up the unique social and economic problems of migratory farm workers, which call for special atten- tion by Federal and State governments and local communities. That report has stimu- lated increased interest and action by a number of States. This Budget includes 156 thousand dollars to enable the Depart- ment of Labor to start a program of co- operation with the States in developing more effective ways to bring to these workers and their families a reasonable share of the advantages normally enjoyed by other citizens. Unemployment trust fund. — Receipts of the unemployment trust fund in the fiscal year 1954 are expected to be slightly higher than in 1953. Benefit payments are also expected to be slightly higher, because more unemployed workers will be eligible for 1151 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents UNEMPLOYMENT TRUST FUND [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Item 19J2 1953 igs4 actual estimated estimated Receipts : Deposits by States and railroad unemployment taxes $1, 459 $1,351 Interest 184 2.02. Payments: State and railroad withdrawals for benefits —1,057 — 916 ~~977 Net accumulation 586 62.7 619 Balance in fund at close of year 8, 654 9, 2.81 9, 900 $1, 387 2.09 benefit payments under the expanded cov- erage of State laws, even though it is as- sumed the level of unemployment will remain low. These receipts and payments are not included in the Budget totals. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Federal Government, by insuring and guaranteeing private loans, has helped to finance the construction of nearly half of the 7 million new homes built since the end of World War II, as well as the purchase and improvement of many million existing homes. A large number of these units has been bought by veterans of World War II with the assistance of loans guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. Since the attack on Korea, special emphasis has been placed on providing housing and community facilities in critical defense areas. The rec- ord levels of construction both before and since June 1950 have materially improved the housing of the average American citizen. Adequate housing is still unavailable, how- ever, for millions of low-income families. Net expenditures for housing and com- munity development in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated at 509 million dollars, a decline of 248 million dollars from the current fiscal year. Principal factors in the expected decline are a lower volume of mortgage purchases and direct loans for veterans' housing, and substantial net receipts instead of expenditures for the public housing programs. Defense housing and community facili- ties.— To help meet the most urgent defense requirements, Federal assistance has been granted or is planned for about 200,000 new housing units in critical defense housing areas and near military posts. Private build- ers are constructing most of these homes with the aid of liberal Federal mortgage insurance backed in many cases by Federal mortgage purchase commitments. In those areas where private builders, even with these special financing aids, are unable to provide the needed housing, the Federal Government is supplying 19,000 temporary units to meet short-term needs near defense installations. Federal grants and loans are also helping local communities to finance the expansion of community facilities where defense activities have made such expansion necessary. To provide a small part of the additional temporary housing units urgently needed near military installations, I am rec- ommending supplemental appropriations of 12.5 million dollars for the current fiscal year. Moreover, since it is now apparent that we cannot complete the needed mini- mum program before the Defense Housing and Community Facilities Act expires next June 30, I believe that the major provisions of the act should be extended for another year, with increased authorizations and ad- ditional appropriations of 100 million dollars. Aids to private housing. — Most of the private housing built in critical defense housing areas is being financed with mort- gages insured by the Federal Housing Ad- II52 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Net expenditures or net Program or agency recaps Q ) 1952 1953 1954 Defense housing and community facilities : actual estimated estimated Present programs $12. $77 $29 Proposed legislation 50 Aids to private housing: Housing and Home Finance Agency: Federal National Mortgage Association 458 460 354 Federal Housing Administration — 29 —38 —63 Other —15 —26 —23 Veterans' housing Joans (Veterans Administration) .... 70 86 —12 Farm housing (Department of Agriculture) 22 19 19 Reconstruction Finance Corporation — 6 — 7 — 7 Public housing programs 136 18 —48 General housing aids : Housing and Home Finance Agency: College housing loans 1 22 40 Other 10 7 6 Urban development and redevelopment 6 17 33 Provision of community facilities 9 31 51 Civil defense 33 84 74 Disaster loans and relief 28 13 6 Total 735 757 509 Recom- mended new obliga- tional authority for 1954 ^100 J9 5i 5 35o 16 150 691 ministration. Since the successive relaxa- tions of real estate credit controls in 195 1 and 1952, applications for Federal insurance of mortgages in other areas have been rising steadily. If this trend continues, it is ex- pected that there will be a need in the fiscal year 1954 ^or mortgage insurance commit- ments to finance nearly 300,000 new housing units. In addition, it is estimated that there will be a need for the Federal Housing Ad- ministration to insure mortgages covering purchases of more than 200,000 existing houses and 2 million other loans for improve- ment and repair of existing housing. To meet these needs will require increases of 1.5 billion dollars in the maximum mortgage insurance authorizations and 500 million dollars in the authority to insure property- improvement loans. Neither of these steps is likely to increase Budget expenditures, since the premiums paid for the insurance usually exceed administrative expenses and losses. The Federal National Mortgage Associa- tion is authorized by law to purchase certain mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration or guaranteed by the Vet- erans Administration. The Veterans Ad- ministration also has authority, until June 30, 1953, to make direct loans to veterans in areas where guaranteed loans are not readily available. Over the past two years, both substantial purchases of veterans* housing mortgages and direct housing loans to veterans have been necessary, because the 4 percent interest rate on the guaranteed mortgages has been unattractive to many private lenders. The expenditure estimates in this Budget assume that under the restric- tive policies adopted last fall a smaller vol- ume of veterans' mortgage purchases will be necessary in the fiscal year 1954. Purchases of defense housing mortgages are expected to increase under the additional authority provided by the Congress last summer. Public housing. — Since the attack on Korea, the low-rent public housing program has been held far below the average annual "53 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents level of 135,000 starts authorized in 1949. For the fiscal year 1953, the Congress has limited the program to 35,000 new units, which will meet only a small part of the needs of low-income families now living in substandard units. For the fiscal year 1954, I am including in this Budget, as I did for 1952 and 1953, provisions for starting a minimum of 75,000 new units. In this program, local authorities con- struct and operate the housing units. The Federal Government lends the authorities money or underwrites private loans to start construction, and pledges an annual con- tribution to help maintain the rents at levels which the tenants can afford. During the fiscal year 1954, the local authorities expect Ito sell substantial amounts of long-term bonds to private investors, using the proceeds to repay short-term loans from the Federal Government. As a result, receipts are ex- pected to exceed expenditures for new loans under this program. In addition, the Public Housing Administration plans to sell 16,000 war housing units built during World War II. This will mean a further increase in receipts. College housing loans. — In May 1950, the Congress authorized 300 million dollars in loans to help educational institutions obtain adequate housing for their students and faculty. This program has been held at low levels and has been confined to defense-re- lated housing construction. However, ap- plications for loans which qualify under these limitations have been increasing, and expenditures are expected to rise substantially in the fiscal year 1954. Urban development and redevelopment. — The broad program for slum clearance and urban redevelopment authorized by the Housing Act of 1949 has been moving slowly, partly because of the time required by the local communities to make specific plans for projects which meet both local needs and Federal requirements. At present, about 180 cities are actively plan- ning projects, but actual clearance and re- development operations have begun on only 23 approved projects in 14 cities. By the end of the fiscal year 1954, it is expected that 10 projects will be completed and about 1 10 others will be under way. Under the original statute, additional loan and grant authority totaling 350 million dol- lars becomes available in the fiscal year 1954. However, because of the limited progress of the program to date and the plans to use private funds to replace most of the direct Federal lending, expenditures are estimated at only 33 million dollars. Civil defense. — Recent advances >*i the techniques of warfare make it imperative that we immediately provide the essentials of a civil defense program. I have repeatedly warned that failure to do so could leave a fatal gap in our security structure. Passive civil defense of the World War II type can- not be effective against atomic warfare. Rather, the emphasis must shift to strong preattack measures, the success of which de- pend largely on advance warning. In this Budget, therefore, I am recommending ap- propriations which would enable the Federal Government to complete the air-raid warn- ing system in the 191 cities which are likely to be principal targets in the event of an enemy attack on the United States. Because the effectiveness of civil defense organiza- tions and techniques depends so directiy on an adequate Nation-wide warning system, the Federal Government should pay the full cost of the warning program. The Govern- ment also should continue to accept full financial responsibility for the stockpiling of a national reserve of medical and engineer- ing supplies and equipment. The present 50 percent matching arrangement should continue for other civil defense programs, since primary responsibility for organization and training of voluntary forces remains with the States and cities. I am recommending total appropriations of 150 million dollars for civil defense in the fiscal year 1954. Because of anticipated de- lays in deliveries of medical and engineering 1154 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] supplies, expenditures are expected to decline from 84 million dollars in the current fiscal year to 74 million dollars in 1954. EDUCATION AND GENERAL RESEARCH Expenditures for education and general research in the fiscal year 1954 are estimated at 288 million dollars, an increase of 16 mil- lion dollars from the present fiscal year. These expenditures, of course, do not in- clude the amounts spent for education and research in carrying out military, veterans', atomic energy, and other programs. Sixty-five percent of the expenditures for education and general research in the fiscal year 1954 will be for grants to those local school districts that have been overburdened by defense activities. Another 10 percent will be for grants to States to help support their vocational education programs and their land-grant colleges. The Federal Gov- ernment also assists Howard University and educational institutions for the deaf and blind, and it maintains major library and museum services at the National Capital. Expenditures for general purpose research are for the work of the Census Bureau, the National Bureau of Standards, and the Na- tional Science Foundation. Promotion of education. — Payments to help build schools in districts overburdened by Federal Government activities and for children living on Federal property are esti- mated at 140 million dollars in the current fiscal year and, because of the expiration of the law authorizing these payments, will decline to an estimated in million dollars in 1954. Under present law, payments will be made only on applications filed before last July, and expenditures will be made from appropriations now available. Nearly 1,000 school districts are being helped to build more than 1,200 schools under this program. Payments for school operating costs in overburdened districts and for children liv- ing on Federal property are estimated at 76 million dollars in the fiscal year 1954, a rise of nearly 25 million dollars over 1953. The increase results largely from the fact that enrollments and costs per pupil are rising. This program covers more than a million children in 2,600 school districts. The law authorizing these payments will expire on June 30, 1954. These programs to aid school districts EDUCATION AND GENERAL RESEARCH [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Program or agency Promotion of education : Office of Education : Assistance for school construction and operation in defense- affected areas . . Vocational education . „ . . . Grants for colleges of agriculture and the mechanic arts. . Other . . . Educational aid to special groups Library and museum services General purpose research: National Science Foundation Census Bureau National Bureau of Standards Total 19S2 actual Expenditures estimated I9S4 estimated Recom- mended new obliga- tional authority for I9J4 $92. z6 $192- 2-5 $187 2-5 $70 2.6 5 5 5 5 3 6 3 8 3 11 5 11 11 *3 13 1 18 4 J3 8 *5 31 9 11 11 9 171 171 188 *77 1155 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents affected directly by defense activities have been very useful. They do not, of course, help the thousands of other school districts which are struggling with the problems of overcrowded schools, underpaid teachers, and obsolete or inadequate buildings. I hope the Congress will consider ways and means of helping the States to meet these needs. National Science Foundation. — The Na- tional Science Foundation was created by the Congress in recognition of the need to formulate an adequate scientific research policy for the Nation, to remedy gaps in our basic scientific knowledge, and to over- come shortages of specialized manpower. However, sufficient funds have not been appropriated to permit the Foundation to perform these functions effectively. As I have pointed out in previous Messages, the Foundation should become the primary in- strumentality through which the Federal Government gives support to basic research that is not directly related to the statutory functions of other Federal agencies. For this reason, the appropriation recommended for the Foundation in 1954 contains amounts for support of basic research and for fellow- ships which would otherwise be included in the estimates of other departments and agencies. I urge the Congress, in the light of these considerations, to provide the Foundation in the fiscal year 1954 tne ^u^ *5 million dollars authorized by present law. The law should be amended so as to permit a higher level of appropriations in the future. Census Bureau. — Expenditures for census work will rise substantially in the fiscal year 1954 because the Census Bureau will take the basic 5-year censuses of business, trans- portation, manufactures, and mineral indus- tries, and will begin preliminary work on the 1954 census of agriculture. As a result of improvements in the methods of collect- ing and compiling data, the total expenditure for the censuses of business and manufac- tures will be less than the last time they were taken despite increases in salary rates and other costs. SOCIAL SECURITY, WELFARE, AND HEALTH Expenditures for social security, welfare, and health are estimated at 2.6 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1954, approximately 15 million dollars less than the estimate for the current year. The chief factor in the expected decline is a drop in expenditures for hospital construction. More than half of the expenditures for social security, welfare, and health are in the form of Federal grants to the States for public assistance. Most of the grants are for assistance payments to the needy aged. At present, 20 percent of the people over 65 years of age depend on this program for support. Railroad retirement. — Budget expendi- tures for railroad retirement are mainly transfers of railroad payroll taxes to a trust account. The expenditures for the fiscal year 1954 also include approximately 35 million dollars as the final installment of a 1949 appropriation of 167 million dollars from general revenues to the railroad retire- ment account to cover the cost of granting railroad workers credit for time spent in military service during World War II. Public assistance. — The Federal Govern- ment makes grants to the States to pay part of the cost of monthly payments to four categories of people in need — the aged, the blind, the permanently and totally disabled, and dependent children. In the fiscal year 1954, these grants are estimated at 1.3 bil- lion dollars, the same as in the current fiscal year. Although the number of beneficiaries on State and local rolls is somewhat lower than last year, individual payments have been rising steadily. This reflects action by the States to cover earlier increases in the cost of living and to provide more adequate relief. It also reflects congressional action last summer increasing Federal contribution rates, effective from October 1, 1952, for a 1 156 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] SOCIAL SECURITY, WELFARE, AND HEALTH [ Fiscal years. In millions ] 1952 "Program or agency actual Retirement and dependents insurance (Railroad Retirement Board and other) $771 Public assistance 1, 179 Promotion of public health 318 Aid to special groups: Vocational rehabilitation (Federal Security Agency) .... iz School lunch (Department of Agriculture) 84 Indian welfare and other 47 Accident compensation (Department of Labor) 36 Prisons and probation 2.3 Defense community facilities and services (Federal Security Agency) 0) Total 2., 491 1 Less than one-half million dollars. Expenditures *95} 1954 estimated estimated Recom- mended new obli- gational authority for 19s 4 $684 $695 $695 *>W- 1.342- ^342- 339 309 194 2-3 84 53 24 83 58 24 83 59 37 30 37 18 37 z 3 M94 2-, 579 M63 period of two years. The need for public assistance should decline as more and more people acquire the protection of old-age and survivors in- surance and qualify for higher benefit pay- ments. Eighty percent of the gainfully employed people in the United States are now covered by this insurance. These people can look forward to monthly benefits in their old age as a matter of right, and at their death their dependents may also be entitled to monthly payments. This system of contributory social insurance was designed as our principal instrument for providing social security. It is now begin- ning to achieve that position. At present, the total of old-age and survivors insurance benefits is about equal to the combined ex- penditures of the Federal, State, and local governments for public assistance payments for all persons in need. Further improve- ments in our social insurance program should be made; they will quicken the rate at which public assistance can be reduced to its intended role as a second line of defense against want, filling gaps in the social insurance program. Promotion of public health. — Federal ex- penditures for all public health programs — exclusive of medical care for military per- sonnel and veterans — are estimated at 309 million dollars in the fiscal year 1954. About half of this amount will be for grants-in-aid to State governments and local communities for hospital construction, general health services, maternal and child health, and the control of such major diseases as tuberculosis, venereal disease, cancer, mental illness, and heart ailments. Other expenditures are for operation of Public Health Service hospitals, for payments to medical schools and univer- sities for medical research and training, and for clinical and laboratory research con- ducted by the Federal Government. This Budget also includes appropriations for grants administered by the National Insti- tutes of Health to private and public institu- tions for construction or major alteration of medical research facilities. The expected decline in expenditures for these programs is due to several factors. Federal payments for hospital construction grants are expected to be 32 million dollars less because of prior year reductions in new 1157 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents obligational authority. Construction out- lays for health research facilities are expected to drop by 11 million dollars with comple- tion of the clinical research center during the current year. These decreases will be partly offset by increases in expenditures for research. Several problems in the health field re- quire congressional attention. We do not have enough doctors, dentists, and nurses to serve the whole population. Many localities are without adequately staffed health offices. Measures are needed to bridge the financial gap between good medical care and the average family's ability to pay for it. The Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, which I established a year ago to study and report on long-term health re- quirements, has now published its findings and recommendations. I urge the Congress to give this report prompt and careful study to the end that appropriate action may be taken to meet our national needs. Aid to special groups. — Essential improve- ments in hospital, school and employment services for our 400,000 native Indians will require some increase in expenditures for these services in the fiscal year 1954. Most of this is for a program to provide Indians with training for employment in industry and agriculture and to help them make satis- factory adjustments in new locations. A small increase is recommended for the Fed- eral-State vocational rehabilitation program, which now helps about 65,000 disabled per- sons annually to become capable of gainful employment. Under another federally aided program, low-priced school lunches are now available to one-fourth of our school children. Trust funds. — Each of the three major civilian retirement systems sponsored by the Federal Government is financed through a SOCIAL SECURITY, WELFARE, AND HEALTH (Trust funds) f Fiscal years. In millions ] Fund and item igj2 actual Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund : Receipts: Appropriation from general receipts $3, 569 Interest and other 363 Payments of benefits and administration expenses — 2., 067 Net accumulation 1, 865 Balance in fund at close of year 16, 590 Railroad retirement account : Receipts : Transfers from Budget accounts 768 Interest 79 Payments of benefits, salaries, and expenses — 391 Net accumulation 456 Balance in fund at close of year 2., 901 Federal employees' retirement funds: Receipts: Employee contributions 418 Transfer from Budget accounts and other 310 Interest 189 Payments of annuities and refunds, and expenses . — 300 Net accumulation . . , 617 Balance in funds at close of year 5, 054 1158 I9S3 estimated 1954 estimated $4,000 435 —2-, 650 $4, 198 48Z —3, 169 1,785 1, 611 i8> 375 19, 986 684 90 —466 695 98 —482. 308 3" 3,109 3,52-0 434 "5 -367 400 430 2.50 -384 603 696 5>657 6,353 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] separate trust fund with payroll contribu- tions as the principal source of revenue. For the fiscal year 1954, receipts in these trust funds are expected to exceed the bene- fit payments by 2.6 billion dollars. This will raise the balances in the three accounts to nearly 30 billion dollars. It is desirable to build up reserves now because the cost of benefits will increase over the years as more and more people become eligible for retire- ment. The interest earned by the reserves which are being accumulated will help to meet this future cost. In the case of old-age and survivors insur- ance, present law provides for gradual in- creases in the tax rate. Effective January 1, 1954, the rate is scheduled to rise from 1% percent to 2 percent each on employers and employees. The receipts and payments of these trust funds are not included in the Budget totals. VETERANS SERVICES AND BENEFITS In the fiscal year 1954, the Federal Gov- ernment will spend an estimated 4.6 billion dollars for a wide variety of veterans' services and benefits, ranging from medical and re- adjustment assistance to service pensions and burial benefits. These services and benefits are provided to veterans or dependents of veterans who died or were disabled in the service, and in many instances also to vet- erans without service-connected injuries or to their families. Expenditures for veterans' programs have declined 38 percent from the post- World War II high of 7.4 billion dollars. How- ever, the total for 1954 continues at about the 1953 level, and the outlook for future years is for increases rather than decreases. Two main factors point to an upward trend in expenditures. The basic factor is VETERANS SERVICES AND BENEFITS [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Recom- mended Expenditures new obli- gational 19J2 I9S3 1954 authority Program or agency actual estimated estimated for 19J4 Compensation and pensions $1, 178 $2, 444 $1, 546 $2, 546 Insurance and servicemen's indemnities 2.16 102. 66 62. Hospitals and medical care: Current expenses 661 660 691 717 Hospital construction 12.3 103 83 100 Readjustment benefits: Education and training 1, 32.5 854 809 810 Other (Veterans Administration and Department of Labor) . 12.2. 144 158 158 Other services and administration (Veterans Administration and other) 2.38 139 2.11 2.2.4 Total 4,863 4,546 4,564 4,617 the rapid growth of the veteran population. increase in outlays is the extension and Since 1940 the number of veterans has in- liberalization of veterans' benefits through creased from 4.3 million to approximately legislation. In the last 10 years the Con- 19.8 million. New veterans are now being gress has enacted more than 500 laws affect- discharged at a rate of approximately one ing veterans' benefits. Because eligibility million a year. If our armed forces con- conditions and benefit rates are fixed by basic tinue at their present size, most of the people statutes, four-fifths of the expenditures of in the United States will eventually be vet- the Veterans Administration are not subject erans or dependents of veterans. to direct control through the Budget process. The second factor which points to an I strongly support the policy of providing 1159 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents assistance to veterans, particularly those injured in the service, in assuming their nor- mal places in society. In considering new veterans' legislation, however, recognition should be given to the extensive develop- ment in recent years of general welfare pro- grams, such as social security, which serve both veterans and nonveterans. There is overlapping at present between the two sets of programs which should be corrected. Compensation and pensions. — It is esti- mated that an average of 3,348,000 indi- viduals and families will receive veterans' compensation and pension payments totaling more than 2.5 billion dollars in the fiscal year 1954. Expenditures for these programs are increasing steadily. Even if no new legislation is enacted and no allowance is made for a further increase of the veteran population, it is estimated that expenditures for veterans' compensation and pensions will double in the next 30 to 40 years. Insurance and servicemen's indemnities. — Under the Servicemen's Indemnity Act of 1 95 1 the Government pays 10 thousand dol- lars to the family of each serviceman who dies on duty or within 120 days thereafter. This supersedes the optional system of na- tional service life insurance. In the case of policyholders who acquired national service life insurance or United States Government life insurance before the indemnity law was enacted, the Government continues to reim- burse the trust funds for deaths traceable to war hazards. Expenditures for indemnities are expected to rise from about 6 million dollars in the fiscal year 1952 to nearly 15 million dollars in 1954, while Government payments to the insurance funds are expected to decline from 210 million dollars to 51 million dollars. Hospital and medical care. — The increase in current expenses of the veterans' hospital and medical program reflects the opening of new hospitals being completed under the construction program authorized after World War II. My Budget recommenda- tions for the fiscal year 1954 provide for an estimated daily average beneficiary load of 136,250 in veterans' hospitals, in contract hospitals, and in State homes. By June 30,, 1954, the Veterans Administration is ex- pected to have in operation 170 hospitals and 17 domiciliary homes. This Budget includes a recommendation for new obliga- tional authority of 80 million dollars to build the final four hospitals in the current con- struction program, and 20 million dollars for modernization, improvement, and repair of existing hospitals. Readjustment benefits. — Expenditures for readjustment benefits in the fiscal year 1954 are expected to decline slightly from the level now estimated for 1953. Expenditures for benefits to World War II veterans are declin- ing, but outlays for benefits to veterans of the Korean conflict are rising, because the Vet- erans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952 extended to the veterans of the current emer- gency benefits similar to those which had been provided under the "GI bill" to World War II veterans. In the fiscal year 1954 it is estimated that about 70 percent of the re- adjustment expenditures will be for benefits under the new law. The estimated 1954 expenditures provide for an average enrollment in school, job, and farm training courses of 715,000 veterans, of whom 475,000 are expected to be veterans of the Korean conflict. They also provide for unemployment allowances of 47 million dol- lars under the new law for an estimated weekly average of 55,200 veterans, and 75 million dollars to cover interest gratuities and losses under the veterans' loan guaran- tee program. It is expected that 368,000 new loans totaling 3.1 billion dollars will be guaranteed during the year. Trust funds. — Under the national service life insurance and United States Govern- ment life insurance trust funds, 50 billion dollars of insurance continues in force in about 7 million policies issued before the Servicemen's Indemnity Act of 195 1. In the three fiscal years 1952 through 1954, expend- itures from these funds are expected to ex- Il6o Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] ceed receipts by a decreasing margin as receipts and payments of these trust funds special dividend payments decline. The are not included in the Budget totals. veterans' life insurance funds (Trust funds) [ Fiscal years. In millions ] 1952 I9S3 1954 Item actual estimated estimated Receipts: Transfers from general and special accounts $2.03 $85 $47 Interest on investments 2.01 2.01 2.00 Premiums and other 473 431 419 Total 877 717 666 Expenditures: Dividends to policyholders 556 2.76 185 Benefits and other 532. 511 515 Total 1,088 787 710 Net withdrawal ( — ) — 2.11 — 70 — 44 Balance in funds at close of year 6,561 6,491 6,447 general government only tighten enforcement of the revenue laws, but also permit the Bureau to give bet- Expenditures in the general government ter assistance to taxpayers. This Budget category are largely for making and enforc- provides for increased activity in the collec- ing laws, collecting taxes, managing the tion of delinquent taxes, public debt, administering Federal records Large numbers of savings bonds purchased and property, and for payments to the Civil during World War II are now reaching Service retirement trust fund. maturity. The owners of most of these Expenditures for general government are bonds are continuing to hold them under expected to increase from 1.4 billion dollars the extension program authorized in 195 1. in the current fiscal year to 1.5 billion dollars Nevertheless, more than one-quarter of these in the fiscal year 1954. The increase is bonds are being presented for redemption, chiefly due to higher Federal payments to These redemptions, plus an increase in cur- the Civil Service retirement system and to rent sales of new savings bonds, have sharply increased expenditures for maintenance and increased the workload of the Bureau of the repair of Government buildings. Public Debt. I am therefore recommending Federal financial management. — Under an increase in the Bureau's appropriation, the reorganization plan approved by the Central property and records manage- Congress last March, the Bureau of Internal ment. — Under the Federal Property and Revenue has reconstituted its Washington Administrative Services Act of 1949, as office, decentralized certain supervisory func- amended, the General Services Administra- tions to 17 newly established districts, and tion has taken major steps to manage more made its inspection service independent of efficiently the buildings owned or operated the rest of the Bureau. Well-qualified per- by the Federal Government, to buy more sonnel have been selected to fill the key posi- economically the items used by many Gov- tions, all of which, except the position of ernment agencies, and to reduce materially Commissioner of Internal Revenue, are now the cost of handling and storing Government part of the classified civil service. These records. steps, by strengthening supervision and more The sharp reductions in appropriations clearly defining responsibilities, should not last year have made it impossible to main- Il6l [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents GENERAL GOVERNMENT [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Program or agency Legislative and judicial functions , Executive direction and management Federal financial management : Tax collection Customs collection, debt management, and other. . . . Other central services : Central property and records management Civil Service Commission Other Retirement for Federal civilian employees Protective services and alien control : Federal Bureau of Investigation Immigration and Naturalization Service Other Territories, possessions, and District of Columbia .... Other general government : Payment of claims and relief acts (Treasury Department) Weather Bureau Other Total 1, 1 Less than one-half million dollars. 411 L385 Recom- Ex :penditures new obli- 1952 actual estimated 1954 estimated gational authority for 1954 $70 $76 $77 $75 9 8 7 7 2.70 168 2-73 !73 2.81 186 2-73 i8z 191 164 2.05 zoz 2.0 ZI ZI zo M 2.2. 2-3 40 3*3 3M 430 430 9i 70 76 77 40 4i 47 48 33 ZI ZI ZI 50 59 59 59 76 2.6 76 2-7 65 2-7 C1) z8 30 30 zz 16 M47 i,478 tain and operate public buildings properly. I am therefore recommending an increase to restore these services to levels more nearly adequate — but still below those maintained by operators of comparable private buildings. I am also recommending increases to permit necessary repairs to Government buildings, to finance the first installment of a three- year program for modernizing major post office facilities in the interests of increased efficiency, to extend the central procurement of common-use items, and to obtain the in- creased savings that may be expected from wider use of surplus equipment and supplies. The funds recommended in this Budget would also finance the last two of ten record centers started two years ago, and thus would complete a program which has already made large savings through better utilization of space and release of filing equipment. Civilian personnel management. — The great improvements made in the Federal civilian service in recent years have brought us nearer to our goal of a real career service throughout the Government, in which all appointments and promotions are based on merit and the conditions of employment provide positive incentives to honest, efficient work. To continue this progress, the funds proposed in this Budget would increase the proportion of placements made through competitive examinations conducted by the Civil Service Commission and boards of examiners in the agencies, extend the Com- mission's inspections of personnel manage- ment in the agencies, and bring certain overseas personnel under the competitive civil service. The Classification Act of 1949 authorized a limited number of positions in grades GS-16, 17, and 18 created under that act. This authorization has been amended by a series of subsequent enactments, frequently in appropriation acts, each allowing a few positions for selected agencies and programs. The lack of consistency in these several statutes constitutes an obstacle to effective management and should be eliminated through the enactment of a single general authorization covering the requirements of 1 162 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [367] all executive branch agencies. For this reason, appropriation requests do not include authority to individual agencies for addi- tional positions in these grades. Retirement for Federal civilian person- nel.— I am recommending appropriations of 427 million dollars to cover the Govern- ment's obligations to the Civil Service Re- tirement and Disability fund and 3 million dollars to pay annuities under special laws. The Government's obligations to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability fund in- clude 59 million dollars to cover the cost for 1953 and 1954 of the temporary increase in benefits voted last summer for persons then receiving annuities from the Civil Service retirement system, and 368 million dollars for its contribution as employer for the fiscal year 1954. The amounts I am recommend- ing do not provide for payments on the Government's outstanding liability to the fund, since this is one of the problems to be studied by the Committee on Retirement Policy for Federal Personnel recently estab- lished by the Congress. Protective services and alien control. — The Immigration and Nationality Act, which became effective on December 24, 1952, has considerably expanded the respon- sibility of the Department of Justice and other departments in such fields as investiga- tion, deportation, inspection, and naturaliza- tion. The law also expands Federal controls over alien crewmen and registered aliens, in- creases visa requirements, and adds new grounds for exclusion and deportation. Also, the Government must pay almost all of the costs of detention, hospitalization, and deportation which were previously borne in part by private carriers. To finance the substantial increases in staff necessary to administer the new law, as well as to strengthen enforcement along the Mexican border, it is recommended that the appro- priation for the Immigration and Naturali- zation Service be increased to 48 million dollars in 1954, and that a supplemental appropriation of 1.7 million dollars be en- acted for 1953. I continue to believe that the new law contains many provisions that are unwise, unfair, and incompatible with our foreign policy objectives. The Commission on Im- migration and Naturalization has now pub- lished its findings and recommendations. I urge the Congress to give them its prompt attention. INTEREST Interest payments constitute a large and growing charge on the Budget. They rep- resent mainly the current cost of the fivefold increase in our public debt which occurred as a result of World War II. As fixed charges, they cannot be reduced by congres- sional or Executive action, but vary only as securities are issued, retired, or refunded under changing interest rates and with varying payment periods. Interest on the public debt. — The cost of interest on the public debt in the fiscal year 1954 is estimated at 6,350 million dollars. The decrease of 100 million dollars from the 1953 estimate does not indicate a reversal of the upward trend in interest payments, but merely reflects an unusual situation [ Fiscal years. In millions ] Item Interest on public debt Interest on refunds of receipts Interest on trust deposits Total 5,934 1PJ2 actual Expenditures 1955 estimated *9S4 estimated Recom- mended new obligational authority {or igs4 $5> 853 76 5 $6, 450 65 5 $6, 350 65 5 $6, 350 65 5 6, 510 6, 410 6,4x0 H63 [367] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents which occurred during the fiscal year 1953. More than 15 billion dollars in certificates of indebtedness which paid almost a year's interest at maturity were refunded early in the fiscal year 1953 into new obligations on which interest payments for half a year or more are due on June 1, 1953. Thus, about 20 months' interest on this portion of the debt falls due during the current fiscal year. Although interest expenditures in 1954 will be lower than in 1953 because of this unusual situation, interest costs are still rising. These increases are due in large part to the higher interest rates paid on securities issued or refunded during the past two years. In addition, each year an increasing amount of special issues is held by Government agencies and trust funds. The interest rates on these issues are slighdy above the average rate on the debt as a whole. Furthermore, these interest rates tend to increase when the average interest rate on the total debt rises. Recent increases in the size of the interest- bearing debt are the second major reason for the rise in interest costs. By the end of the current fiscal year, the outstanding debt will have increased by 6.5 billion dollars since Korea, and the 9.9 billion dollar deficit estimated for the fiscal year 1954 will cause a further increase. My interest in and study of the Federal Budget began many years before I became President. As President, I have given the Budget my constant attention. It should receive that same attention from the Con- gress, particularly because of one basic fact often overlooked and often misunderstood. This fact is that the financial program of the Government cannot be planned in terms of a single fiscal year. It must be planned in the light of security, economic, and budgetary goals — not just for the ensu- ing year but for three and even four years ahead. The Budgets I have transmitted have always reflected such planning. My recom- mendations on taxes and appropriations have had as their objectives the meeting of all our responsibilities for the security and welfare of our people and for a growing economy with a stable currency and a balanced budget. Budget and fiscal policies are tools of national policy. As such, they are subjects of controversy and evolution. I believe that the policies I have supported are sound, and that the recommendations in this Budget will enable us to meet our national needs in the fiscal year 1954 in the light of the Nation-wide and world-wide objectives of the United States. Harry S. Truman January 9, 1953 note: The message was transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives on January 9. The message and the budget document (1155 pp.) are published in House Document 16 (83d Cong., 1st sess.). As printed above, references to special analysis appearing in the budget document have been omitted. 368 Statement by the President on the Change in the Public Debt During His Term of Office. January 9, 1953 THERE HAVE recently been a number of misleading or inaccurate statements made concerning the budget figures and the change in the public debt during my term in office. There is no excuse for such state- ments, because the relevant information has all been made public many times. A glance at the table printed in the Budget in Brief would be enough to check the facts. The story may be most conveniendy summarized in three time periods. 1. From April 12, 1945, to June 30, 1946, we were completing the financing of World War II. When I became President, World War II was in full tide. Twelve million men and 1 164 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [368] women were in the Armed Forces and were distributed to the far corners of the earth. Another 10 million men and women were engaged in munitions production. They were employed in defense plants working day and night to produce the armaments that finally permitted us to prevail over the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists. Many billions of dollars in war contracts were out- standing to enable American industry to schedule the production required to win the war. All of this required budget expenditures of billions of dollars; and the Treasury, in or- der to provide this money, was just getting ready in April 1945 to undertake the seventh war loan. When hostilities ceased, I cut the war spending program by over $60 bil- lion. However, this reduction could not be accomplished immediately. A large vol- ume of war expenditures was still in process, and as the year 1945 proceeded, another and final war loan, the Victory Loan, was com- pleted to provide the funds needed for con- cluding war operations and financing the demobilization. During the fiscal year from July 1, 1945, to June 30, 1946, the budget for which had been submitted early in 1945, there was a budget deficit of $20.7 billion, reflecting the carryover of wartime spending. The public debt rose from $234.1 billion on April 12, 1945, to a peak of $279.2 billion in February 1946, and thereafter declined to $269.4 billion on June 30, 1946. 2. July 1, 1946, was the beginning of the first fiscal year following the end of the war. By that date the wartime Armed Forces had been largely demobilized; most of the war contracts had been liquidated. We had nearly completed our reconversion. From then until June 30, 1950, we were in a period of generally high employment and national income. For those 4 fiscal years we had a net budget surplus of $4.3 billion. By applying this surplus and some of the war- time cash reserves, the public debt was re- duced substantially, reaching a low point of $251.2 billion in June 1949, and amounting to $257.4 billion on June 30, 1950. This was a good record, though it should have been better. I recommended fre- quently during this period that our surpluses be larger and our debt reduction greater. But the untimely and unfair tax reduction of 1948, passed by the 80th Congress over my veto, prevented this. 3. Beginning with the fiscal year 195 1, we entered the period which followed the Com- munist aggression in Korea. Our defense expenditures were sharply increased, and the Congress increased taxes markedly, though not as much as I recommended. During the first 2 fiscal years following the invasion of SUMMARY OF BUDGET AND PUBLIC DEBT FIGURES [ In billions of dollars ] Budget Surplus ( + ) Budget expendi- or Public Date or fiscal year ending receipts tures deficit ( — ) debt Date: April ii, 1945 2.34. 1 February 2.8, 1946 (peak) 179. 2. June 2.7, 1949 (Post World War II low point) 2.51.2. Fiscal year ending: June 30, 1946 40.0 60.7 —10.7 2.69.4 June3o, 1947 40.0 39.3 + .7 2.58.3 June 30, 1948 41.1 33.8 +8.4 152..3 June 30, 1949 38.1 40.0 —1.8 2.52.. 8 June3o, 1950 37.0 40.1 —3.1 2.57.4 June30, 1951 48.1 44.6 +3.5 155. 2. June 30, 1951 6z. 1 66.1 —4.0 2.59.1 June 30, 1953 (estimate) * 68.7 74.6 — 5-9 2.63.9 June 30, 1954 (estimate) J68.7 78.6 ~~9-9 2.73.8 1 Estimated on basis of present tax laws. 1 165 [368] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents Korea, we came very close to following the pay-as- we-go policy I recommended. For the 2 fiscal years 1951 and 1952 we had a net budget deficit of about $% billion, and the public debt rose less than $2 billion. Since last June, however, as defense ex- penditures have continued to rise, we have begun to depart seriously from the pay-as- we-go policy. It is now estimated that the present fiscal year will show a budget deficit of $5.9 billion, and if no changes are made in present tax laws, the fiscal year 1954 will show a budget deficit of $9.9 billion. In keeping with the general policy I have estab- lished, I am not making specific tax recom- mendations to the new Congress. I wish to make it plain, however, that I do not con- sider it prudent or wise for this country to depart, at a time of high and rising employ- ment and national income, from a pay-as-we- go policy for defense expenditures. 369 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Volume One of the Report of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. January 9, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith for the con- sideration of the Congress Volume One of the Report of the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. I rec- ommend that this volume, and the four supplementary volumes to be made available shortly, receive the careful study of each Member of the Congress. This report deals with one of the most valuable resources of our Nation — the health of our people. At a time when we are de- voting our energies to strengthening our country in the world-wide struggle against communist aggression, we can ill afford to neglect the essential needs of our people in the protection and improvement of their health. It was for this reason that I established the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation some twelve months ago. At that time, I pointed out that bitter and partisan opposition to various proposals for the solution of our health problems had con- fused our people about the proper course of action on subjects vital to their welfare. I therefore appointed this Commission, com- posed of fifteen distinguished citizens, and asked them to make a fresh appraisal of our health resources and our health needs. I urged them to give us the benefit of their objective and constructive consideration of these problems which are so important in the daily life of every American. The Commission members accepted this challenging assignment. Their findings and recommendations, after twelve months of in- tensive work in public hearings, panel dis- cussions, and commission sessions, are now available in this volume. Despite the wide divergence of viewpoints represented by its membership, the Commis- sion is unanimous in its findings that there are great problems in the health field which demand immediate attention. It concluded that, among other things, we are in urgent need of programs to provide more physicians, dentists, nurses, and health technicians. We must have additional health facilities includ- ing medical schools, hospitals, and local pub- lic health units. And positive action must be taken to bring adequate health care within the financial means of all our people. Throughout its report the Commission has stressed its belief that good health care must start at the grass roots — with the Federal n66 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 9 [370] Government taking the leadership, where necessary, in the promotion of good health rather than in extensive direct operation of health services. With this point in mind, the Commission has endorsed the principle of Federal grants-in-aid for State and local activities in the health field. The Commis- sioners also agreed that most of the people who now lack adequate health services find themselves in this position because of cost factors that are beyond the individual's control. In the past, I have recommended that the problem of the high cost of health care be met by a national health insurance system. While the Commission majority felt that this approach required further study before com- ing to any final conclusions on its merits, it recommended immediate attention be given to a proposal for Federal grants-in-aid to State plans for comprehensive personal health services. This latter proposal has the virtue of affording local and State groups the initial opportunity for the establishment of work- able health services plans. It likewise may encourage the most effective use of private and public health facilities at the local level in providing essential health services. For these reasons it may well be desirable at this time to devote our efforts to the establish- ment of a program which will give the States a chance to bear the major responsibility in bringing the cost of health services within the means of all our people. The members of the President's Commis- sion on the Health Needs of the Nation, through their conscientious and tireless ef- forts over the past twelve months, have pointed the way to a fresh and constructive approach in meeting our problems in the all-important health field. It is my earnest hope that the Congress will give immediate consideration to the findings and recom- mendations of this Commission and thus continue our efforts to protect and improve the health of all the people of this Nation. Harry S. Truman note: See also the President's statement on receiving Volume One, Item 352. The titles and other bibliographic information relating to all of the volumes is given in the note to that item. 370 Letter to the President-Elect Forwarding Draft Order "Establishing Special Personnel Procedures in the Interest of the National Defense." January 9, 1953 Dear General Eisenhower: I am forwarding herewith the draft of an Executive Order "Establishing Special Per- sonnel Procedures in the Interest of the National Defense" which has recently been developed and has come to me for approval. I am deferring issuance of the Order inas- much as the effective date would be con- siderably after the 20th of January, 1953, and inasmuch as it has been said that if the Order is issued at this time, political impli- cations will be read into it with the pos- sibility of injury to the loyal hard-working civil servants affected by it. Nevertheless, I consider that the proposal merits early and careful consideration. Under present law, there is a restriction on the size of the permanent civil service so that nearly all appointments are made on an indefinite basis. However, the Civil Service Commission has continued its ex- amining program and employees are ap- pointed to this indefinite status from com- petitive civil service registers in the same manner as appointments were formerly made to the permanent service. The proposed Order would establish a civil service reserve composed of persons appointed from com- 1167 [370] Jan. 9 Public Papers of the Presidents petitive civil service registers and would afford an orderly method for absorption of such appointees into the career civil service over a period of time as vacancies in the permanent service occur without the cosdy and time-consuming process of re-examina- tion. The proposed Order is the result of many months' study by experts in the Civil Service Commission and the Bureau of the Budget. It has had the consideration of Mr. Sherman Adams of your staff, and I believe it is of such importance that I am calling it to your attention as being in the best interests of the Federal civil service. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable D wight D. Eisenhower, The Com- modore Hotel, New York, N.Y.] note: The problem of Federal employees' serving without permanent status was resolved when the Civil Service Rules were revised in their entirety. A career-conditional status, similar to the reserve proposed by President Truman, was established by Executive Order 10577 (November 22, 1954, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218). 371 Letter Accepting Resignation of Robert A. Lovett as Secretary of Defense. January 9, 1953 [ Released January 9, 1953. Dated January 8, 1953 ] Dear Bob: I have your letter and I accept your resig- nation as Secretary of Defense, effective at the end of the President's term of office, January 20, 1953, as you desire. I do this with regret. Your services in positions of great responsibility have been as varied as they have been distinguished. You not only have given time and energy to your country; with it you have brought results. Your foresight and initiative earned your colleagues' respect; the effective team- work ensuing has been the Nation's gain. The splendid achievements of the Depart- ment of Defense in these last years must be attributed in large part to your vision and deep understanding of international as well as domestic affairs. Your contribution to the national security places me and every other American in your debt. You have discharged your duties well and faithfully. As we both prepare to leave office, I thank you for your devotion and your wisdom and your skill. Your good wishes, I appreciate. You have mine always. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Lovett served as Assistant Secretary of War for Air from April 22, 1941, to December 8, 1945, as Under Secretary of State from July 1, 1947, to January 20, 1949, as Deputy Secretary of Defense from October 2, 1950, to September 17, 195 1, and as Secretary of Defense to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated November 25, 1952, was released with the President's reply. 372 Letter to the Attorney General on the Grand Jury Investigation of the International Oil Cartels. January 12, 1953 Dear Mr. Attorney General: As a result of factors which have emerged since the institution of the current grand jury investigation of the international activi- ties of the major oil companies, I am of the opinion that the interest of national security might be best served at this time by resolving the important questions of law and policy involved in that investigation in the context of civil litigation rather than in the context of a criminal proceeding. However, I be- lieve that this would be the case only if the 1 168 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 13 [373] companies involved agreed to the produc- tion of documentary material which the companies are required to produce under an existing order of court based on grand jury subpoenas. Consequendy, I ask that you promptly confer with representatives of the companies to ascertain if they will agree to enter into a stipulation to that effect. If they will, I ask that a civil proceeding be instituted accordingly and that appropriate steps be taken to cause the termination of the pending grand jury proceedings. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [The Honorable, The Attorney General] note: The Grand Jury investigation had been in- stituted to determine whether the international oil cartel had violated antimonopoly laws. See also Items 197 [6], 221 [11]. 373 Special Message to the Congress Transmitting Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization. January 13, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: I am transmitting herewith the report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, which has been made to me under date of January i, 1953. This report is the work of a Commission of seven members, appointed by me in accordance with Executive Order 10392, September 4, 1952. The Commission was authorized and directed to make a survey and evaluation of the immigration and naturalization policies of the United States, and to make recom- mendations for such legislative, administra- tive or other action as in its opinion might be desirable in the interests of the economy, security and responsibilities of this country. The Commission's report and recommen- dations are based on hearings held in eleven cities from coast to coast between September 30th and October 29th last. Four hundred statements were received orally or in writing during the hearings, and 234 more written statements were filed with the Commission after the hearings were over. In some in- stances, individual witnesses represented a number of different organizations, so that approximately one thousand individuals and organizations, representing many millions of people, made their views known to the Commission. Through the cooperation of Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Commit- tee on the Judiciary, the record of the hear- ings and statements has been printed, and is available for study. The Commission, which is to go out of existence by the end of this month, is com- posed of the following members: Philip B. Perlman of Maryland, Chairman. (Formerly, Solicitor General of the United States; formerly City Solicitor of Baltimore; Secretary of State of Maryland; Assistant Attorney General of Maryland.) Earl G. Harrison of Pennsylvania, Vice Chairman. (Attorney; formerly United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization — and formerly Dean of the Law School of the University of Pennsyl- vania.) Monsignor John O'Grady of Washington, D.C. (Secretary, National Conference of Catholic Charities.) Reverend Thaddeus F. Gullixson of Min- nesota. (President, Lutheran Theological Seminary of St. Paul, Minnesota; Chairman, Minnesota State Displaced Persons Commis- sion.) Clarence E. Pickett of Pennsylvania. (Honorary secretary, American Friends Service Committee.) Adrian S. Fisher of Tennessee. (Legal Adviser to State Department; formerly 1 169 [373] Jan. 13 Public Papers of the Presidents General Counsel of Atomic Energy Commis- sion and Solicitor of the Department of Commerce.) Thomas G. Finucane of Maryland. (Chairman, Board of Immigration Appeals, Department of Justice.) These commissioners brought to their work the benefit of long and distinguished experience in public affairs, and great talent in the evaluation of facts and in ability to reach fair and impartial judgments. Their appraisal of the injurious effect of the Im- migration and Nationality Act of 1952 merits your earnest and prompt consideration. Their recommendations for new provisions and new policies, embodied in their report, are in accordance with our finest traditions. Such recommendations, if enacted into law, would do much to convince the peoples of the free world that we have not lost an iota of our faith in the great principles upon which this Nation was founded, and upon which it has risen to a place of pre-eminence among all nations. The report and the record of hearings and statements are documents of the greatest possible value to all those interested in legis- lative and administrative action to formulate and enforce policies in strict accordance with the doctrines laid down in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The recommendations are designed to eliminate from our immigra- tion laws the unfortunate provisions which apply discriminations based on national origin, race, creed and color; and to sub- stitute provisions worthy of our people and our form of government. I am confident you will join me in my gratitude to the members of the Commis- sion for the splendid services they have so generously given at my request. I am sending a copy of the Commission's report, and of the record of the Commis- sion's hearings, as they appear in the Com- mittee Print of the House Committee on the Judiciary, to General Eisenhower. Harry S. Truman note: The report "Whom We Shall Welcome," dated January 4, 1953, was published by the Gov- ernment Printing Office (1952, 319 pp.). See also Items 244, 364. 374 Letter Accepting Resignation o£ Charles Sawyer as Secretary of Commerce. January 13, 1953 [ Released January 13, 1953. Dated January 10, 1953 ] Dear Charlie: Effective at the end of my term of office, January 20, 1953, I accept your resignation as Secretary of Commerce, as you have asked me to do. Since you took office in May 1948, you have done a great deal in bringing business and Government closer together, in adminis- tering the materials control program, in strengthening our national economy, and in preparing a plan for business men to cope with the problems of post-defense mar- kets. These are accomplishments of which we both can be proud. I want also to com- mend you for your skillful management of the Department of Commerce and its con- stituent bureaus in the performance of their far-reaching activities in behalf of foreign and domestic commerce, shipping, aviation, transportation, science and invention. I am grateful for your service during my administration and glad that it has been a satisfying experience for you. Please accept my good wishes. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Sawyer served as Secretary of Commerce from May 6, 1948, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 5, was released with the President's reply. 1 170 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] 375 Letter in Response to Report by the Chairman, National Security Resources Board. January 13, 1953 Dear Mr. Gorrie: Thank you for the report of the activities of the National Security Resources Board under your Chairmanship. I am glad to have this record of the constructive steps which our Government is taking to strengthen its security and your appraisal of the problems to which we must give prompt and increasing attention. The Resources Board, created under the National Security Act of 1947, has been a vital force in the planning that has gone forward to strengthen the mobilization base and to gird the Nation for effective defense. I have relied greatly on the advice of the Resources Board in formulating national policy for the direction of our defense effort both before and since the invasion of Korea; and I have looked to it for sound advice with respect to planning for effective defense for the future with its great question marks. Much of the advice you have given me over the past years, because of the nature of the problems to which it related, has been classified. It is appropriate, therefore, to have a report at this time, summarizing to the extent possible, some of the major activi- ties of the Board in initiating and guiding the development of special security programs, particularly as they relate to the non-military defense of the continent. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. Jack Gorrie, Chairman, National Security Resources Board, Washington 25, D.C.] note: The report, entitled "Report to the President by the Chairman, National Security Resources Board," was published by the National Security Resources Board (1953, 40 pp.). A White House summary of the report was released with the President's letter. 376 Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report. January 14, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: In this, my seventh and final Annual Economic Report to the Congress under the Employment Act of 1946, I think it appro- priate to review the period of which the Act is both product and symbol. Early in the past quarter-century, the United States fell from good times into a period of great economic adversity. Out of this experience, there arose the compelling demand which finally produced the declara- tion of national economic policy contained in the Employment Act — that our great resources were pledged to the maintenance of maximum production, employment, and purchasing power. Later within this quarter-century, we achieved in great measure the kind of eco- nomic society of which the Act is a symbol — a prosperous and growing economy of free men, with increasing opportunity for all. In this accomplishment we have testimony that we can hold fast to our gains and add to them in the years ahead. The Progress of the American Economy During a Quarter-Century During this past quarter-century, the strength and vigor of the American economy have been severely tested. Since 1929, the Nation has suffered its most disastrous de- pression, fought its most costly war, and moved through a difficult postwar readjust- ment. Most recently, it has devoted a large portion of its output in the effort of the free world to overcome the menace of aggression. Now, despite the wastage of depression and the heavy but necessary expenditures for war and national security, the Nation is far 1 171 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents stronger economically than it was a quarter- century ago. Its people are enjoying a much higher standard of living. Its farms and factories are far more productive. And it is displaying in remarkable fashion the capacity for economic growth on which its future welfare and security so largely depend. Production, jobs, and living standards The Nation's progress during this past quarter-century is evident in the figures which sum up total economic activity. In 1929, the output of all goods and serv- ices was 172 billion dollars; in 1952, total output amounted to 345 billion dollars — measured in both cases in uniform 1952 prices. Industrial production has doubled, and agricultural output has risen about 50 percent. Last year, on the average, more than 61 million workers had civilian jobs, compared with almost 48 million in 1929. Both were good years for employment. In 1952, how- ever, the average individual worked fewer hours — and produced more goods. From 1929 to 1952, the length of the workweek for all types of activity dropped from about 48 to 40 hours, but each worker turned out on the average 80 percent more goods and services. This greater yield reflects more and better equipment, and higher skills, than existed 25 years ago. Invention and business initiative have more than kept up with the rise in the number of men and women seeking work, and have made it possible for them to find better jobs. While we have been producing more for consumers, we have at the same time been adding to equipment on farms and in facto- ries. In 1952, for example, we spent about 26 billion dollars for machines and other kinds of durable equipment, compared with a little more than 11 billion dollars in 1929, both measured in 1952 prices. Vast resource development projects and conservation programs have been undertaken in the past quarter-century, some public, some private, and many a mixture of the two. Public construction expenditures for flood control, navigation improvements, agricultural land reclamation, hydroelectric power facilities, and soil and forest conserva- tion have increased more than 300 percent in real terms. Multiple-purpose develop- ment of the Tennessee, Columbia, and other rivers has been far advanced. Huge addi- tional amounts are being invested in atomic energy. Private mining, timber, and other concerns have increasingly adopted conser- vation practices, and have invested heavily in research and development. Individual farmers, frequently aided by the Govern- ment, have greatly enlarged their investment in their own land. Production and con- sumption of nearly all raw materials have in- creased since 1929. These developments have enormously enlarged the productive power of our factories and farms, helped to power and equip the American home with the most modern conveniences, and cor- respondingly lifted the standard of living. The Nation's progress is shown also in greatly increased earnings and improved living standards. In 1929, average annual income after taxes was a little more than $1,000 per capita, while last year the aver- age was about $1,500 — again measured in 1952 prices. It should be noted that, while the real buying power of individuals was rising, the population of the United States increased by about 35 million. Our econ- omy now provides much more for many more people. The greatly improved living standards which have been achieved during the past quarter-century are evident in more tangible data than the number of dollars earned or spent. In 1929, there were 23 million automobiles in use, and in 1952 there were 44 million. In the same span of time, the number of homes with a mechanical refrigerator in- creased from about 10 to 80 percent. The number with radios increased from 40 to 96 percent, and 40 percent now have tele- vision sets. Compared with 10 percent in 1929, nearly 90 percent of all farms are now electrified. 1 172 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] During the era as a whole, we have built 12 million new nonfarm homes, most of them since World War II. Home owner- ship increased from 48 percent of all families in 1930 to 55 percent in 1950. Terms of housing finance have improved greatly, bringing home ownership within the reach of lower income groups, and also facilitating construction of apartments and other houses for rent. In the blighted sections of cities, a hopeful number of slum clearance and redevelopment projects both public and private have been undertaken, though far from enough. And the record has not been written in total quantities alone, whether of dollars, automobiles, or houses. The products of our economy are now far better distributed than they used to be. Adequate statistics do not go back to 1929. But since 1935-36, the real incomes of families and single per- sons in the lowest two-fifths of the income range have increased 90 percent, while the increase in the top fifth has been about 40 percent. This improved distribution is not only a mark of social progress and increasing human contentment; it is also a vital under- pinning of sustained and advancing general prosperity for all sectors of the economy. Economic justice and the higher values Improved and more widely available education, medical care, and economic secu- rity are among the cherished features of the American way of life. So are the basic freedoms, full enjoyment of which depends upon progressive removal of discriminatory practices in the market place and elsewhere. These are higher values in the sense that they are abiding objectives of policy and action. But they also undergird the eco- nomic and moral strength of the country. They provide the source of a strong, healthy, and skilled labor force, and an imaginative and responsible management. They pro- vide a motivation for economic growth. Although the pursuit of these values during the past quarter-century has been interrupted by depression, world-wide war, and the necessities of the defense build-up, considerable headway has nonetheless been made. Total educational expenditures, in con- stant prices, have about doubled since 1929. Capital outlays for public schools, again in constant prices, have gone up 63 percent in the same period. Teachers are better trained, curriculums have improved, and schools are designed for more effective learning. Total per capita expenditures for health and medical services have nearly doubled during this era, after adjusting for price change. Oudays for hospital construction, both public and private, have risen about 83 percent. There is one doctor for every 740 persons now, compared with one for every 800 in 1929. Expenditures for medical re- search mounted to nearly 200 million dollars in 1952. The quality of medical care has improved with the development of new drugs, better techniques of surgery and hos- pital treatment, and the extension of pre- ventive medicine. It has been essential to do justice to those who have fought to defend us against enemies. Since 1929, the number of veterans has increased from 4.7 million to 19.7 million. Veterans and their families now comprise 40 percent of the total civilian population. Some 7.8 million veterans have received education and training aid since World War II, and an additional 600,000 have received vocational rehabilitation train- ing. Increasing numbers of Korean war veterans will be receiving similar help. Unemployment insurance has been paid to about 9 million veterans. Farm and busi- ness loans, and housing mortgage guarantees and loans, have also helped veterans. Progress in social security has been signif- icant, with the advent in the mid- 1 930's of old-age insurance, unemployment insurance, and new and improved public assistance pro- grams. The Federal old-age and survivors insurance program covers 45 million per- sons, while Federal-State public assistance is available for dependent children, the 55-672h-66r— 77 "73 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents blind, needy old persons, and the perma- nently and totally disabled. The Federal- State unemployment insurance system now covers about 35 million jobs. The eventual elimination of discrimina- tion based on race, religion, economic status, or section of the country is a continuing ob- jective of national policy. Discrimination is in part economic in origin, and can be reduced by economic measures. Through- out the past quarter-century, particularly as part of the economic and social reforms of the thirties, great though insufficient gains have been made. Workers have been guaranteed the right to organize and bargain collectively. The Fair Labor Standards Act established the principle of minimum wages and maximum hours. Fair employment practices acts have been passed in some 12 States. Economic justice for American agricul- ture has advanced tremendously since the period just before the great depression. Vast conservation programs, intensified agricultural research, loans and assistance to farm families, especially low income fami- lies, price supports to reduce instability, and rural electrification have combined to im- prove rural life. Since 1929, per capita farm income in constant dollars has in- creased about 80 percent. The gain here has been relatively large, because the farmer had been left so far behind during the uneven prosperity of the late 1920's. Opportunities for business have also widened, particularly as a result of the un- precedented period of prosperity since around 1940. There were only a third as many business failures in 1952 as in 1929, even though the number of business firms in operation has increased by one-third. In this quarter-century, while wholesale prices rose 80 percent and consumers' prices 55 percent, corporate profits rose more than 300 percent before taxes and more than 100 percent after taxes. Working conditions have benefited enor- mously under the joint impact of union efforts, business policies of sharing produc- tivity gains, and government programs. For factory workers with three dependents, the increase in average weekly take-home pay (after allowing for the taxes paid by a family of this size) has been from $39 to about $63, measured in 1952 prices. Reinforcements against economic -fluctu- ations During recent weeks, a variety of com- mentators far and wide have noted the pro- foundly protective and stabilizing elements which have been built into our economic system during the past quarter-century. There is now a rather prevalent view that the danger of any economic setback getting out of hand during the next few years is mini- mized by broader and fairer distribution of income among individuals and economic groups; a more progressive tax system which automatically adjusts in part to changes in business conditions; a level of public expend- itures which, while we all want to see it lower as soon as world conditions permit, stabilizes demand and stimulates private in- vestment; unemployment compensation and the rest of the social security system; farm price supports; a far more shockproof system of banks and securities exchanges ; the greater firmness of wage rates due in part to strong unions; and more enlightened business prac- tices with respect to pricing, marketing, col- lective bargaining, and investment planning. And not the least of the stabilizing effects of these programs is the increasing confidence in the maintenance of prosperity which they inspire. Much remains to be done Despite these great gains, many of our domestic economic problems have not been solved, some things should have been done better, many inadequacies still exist, and above all, the task of maintaining and ad- vancing the rate of progress and forging new tools to meet new needs is always with us. In addition, while the current defense build- up is near its peak, the new problem of America's role in the world economy presses II74 Harry S. Truman, 7953 Jan. 14 [376] for solution. This problem will long endure, and it will call for many further changes in our thought and action. Here at home, the recent period of eco- nomic growth has been accompanied by periodic inflation. Such periods of inflation not only threaten the continuance of growth but also prevent the benefits of growth from being enjoyed equitably by all the people in all sectors of the economy. We can still ob- serve, despite unparalleled prosperity, depri- vation of one kind or another among Ameri- can families to be counted in the millions. We may face in the future, particularly when defense spending can safely be reduced, more serious tests of our ability to avoid de- pression than those which have occurred since World War II. And as we continue to build safeguards against such a test, it would be imprudent to rely excessively upon the stabilizing factors already in being which have been set forth above. They are not of themselves sufficiently strong to check in- flation when it threatens, or to safeguard us from depression and maintain continuous prosperity and growth. While much has been accomplished, much remains to be done. The basic legislation which calls for this Economic Report — the Employment Act of 1946 — is the framework within which we should strive to develop the further improve- ment of our economic condition. In the re- mainder of this message, I shall endeavor to evaluate this framework and to set within it some of the problems we face and some of the promises that lie ahead if we meet these problems effectively. Purpose and Performance Under the Employment Act Purpose of the Act The Employment Act of 1946 is one of the most fundamental compacts in domestic affairs which the people through their Gov- ernment have made during my tenure as President. It represents the refusal of Americans in all pursuits — in business, labor, agriculture, and Government — to accept recurrent depression as a way of life. It voices a profound conviction that all of us—- working together — can maintain and en- large prosperity, not only during or as an aftermath of war, but enduringly for all time. The Act is more than an essay in wishful thinking. It represents the closely reasoned conclusion of economic minds, both schol- arly and practical, that its objectives are ob- tainable by sensible private and public policies and can best be sought within the framework of our established political and economic institutions. There were historical roots for this en- deavor. The lessons of the past had been particularly compelling in the decade and a half which preceded 1946. These had been years of unprecedented contrast, so far as economic abundance was concerned. On the one hand, there was the stark tragedy of the early thirties, and then the seemingly boundless energies of the early forties. The period had been rich in careful social experi- mentation and legislative reform; the eco- nomic role and responsibilities of the Federal Government had increased enormously. Many of the experiments had been temporary in character, to meet the emergencies of the depression or the extraordinary demands of war. But many of them were developed and improved to become permanent additions to our economic and social fabric. Yet the Employment Act was not written in a spirit of conflict. It was not focused on the interests of any one group, whether powerful or downtrodden, but was addressed explicitly to the general welfare. And to an amazing degree, when one considers the thinking which it marked, it was noncon- troversial. The subcommittees of the Senate and the House which skillfully ushered it into the legislative world worked to a large extent as bipartisan teams, and the final bill commanded overwhelming majorities of both parties in both houses of the Congress. There are those who have suggested from time to time that, because the Act was rela- II75 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents tively noncontroversial, it cannot have been very consequential. This is erroneous. Near unanimity, in this instance, was not a mark of the unimportant or the hackneyed; it was evidence that a legislative proposal of the greatest moment was extraordinarily well timed. It wrote into the codes of the Nation a great new area of agreement about the essential functions and responsibilities of the Federal Government almost as soon as that agreement existed. It is likewise a mistake to underestimate the importance of the Employment Act, as some have done, because it did not set down a specific prescription of economic policies for solving future economic problems. The decision of its framers in this respect was deliberate, and did not represent simply an inability to get agreement on more technical or specific provisions. Instead, the decision was that such basic legislation should not attempt to prejudge the exact character, causes, and remedies of all of the future's general economic problems, but rather to define the general spirit and provide the general method for meeting these problems as they arise. With these problems in view, the Act has three specific purposes. First, it is the purpose of the Act to achieve, within the Congress and the Executive Branch, and also between private enterprise and all levels of government, better economic policy coordination. In the thirties, and again during World War II, the economic programs of the Government had become increasingly diverse and complex, and any realistic appraisal indicated that they would remain so. The special pressures which were brought to bear upon public economic policy-making had become more powerful, more numerous, and more confusing. But this growth of complexity had not been matched, especially within the perma- ment institutions of the Government, by the development of adequate means for gauging whether our farm programs, developmental programs, international trade policies, tax policies, credit policies, business regulatory policies, industrial relations law, and the 1 176 rest, were consistent with one another and fitted together into a sensible economic policy for the over-all economy. In the thinking of Congressmen from particular sections and on particular committees, and of leading ad- ministrators with specialized responsibilities, the whole too often was lost in preoccupa- tion with the parts. The governmental reforms in the Em- ployment Act have sought to meet this problem by strengthening the President's facilities for economic policy coordination within the Executive Branch, by supplying the Congress with a similar facility, and by providing in the Economic Report a regu- lar method for improved coordination be- tween the two branches. Thus the Act meets the problem squarely within the framework of our constitutional system of separated powers. Instead of attempting to circumvent the system with a hybrid agency which would be clearly responsible neither to the Congress nor the President, it installs a mechanism intended to make the tradi- tional system work better. And it provides also, by requiring consultation with busi- ness, farm, labor, consumer and other groups, for cooperation and coordination between private and public economic thought and action. Second, it is the purpose of the Employ- ment Act — the one most widely recognized at the time of its passage — to prevent de- pressions. As World War II drew to a close, recollections of the shocking costs of the great depression were much sharper than they are today after a dozen years of unin- terrupted high prosperity. The minds of most of us in 1946 were still deeply etched with the memory of the winter of 1932-33, when about 15 million American workers, or about 30 percent of the total civilian labor force, had no jobs; when in- dustrial production was only half what it had been in 1929 and the total output of the economy only about two-thirds; when busi- ness was deep in the red; when farm prices and incomes had dropped out of sight; and when banks were collapsing by the hun- Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] dreds. It has been calculated that the de- pression cost us some 600 billion dollars of output, measured in 1952 prices, or 3% times everything we produced in 1929. The Employment Act stands as a pledge on the part of the people voiced through their laws that never again shall any such sacrifice be laid on the altar of "natural eco- nomic forces." In the bigger economy we now have, a disaster of anywhere near the same proportions could mean some 20 mil- lions of our workers walking the streets. Moreover, the cost of another serious de- pression would not stop at our own borders. What was becoming apparent in 1946 is now a reality: the strength and stability of the whole free world depend on the avoidance of economic collapse in this country. Third, the Employment Act had still another clear purpose even more profound and challenging than those of improving economic policy coordination and prevent- ing depressions. It is one which carries beyond the essentially negative and intermit- tent objective of counteracting slumps. It is the positive resolution of a great people, not simply to avoid pitfalls, but to maintain as a matter of continuing policy a full, bountiful, and growing economy, for them- selves, for their children, and as a standard and inspiration toward the freedom and wel- fare of all peoples — and to do this in full peace no less than in limited war. This is a purpose of which we must never lose track. The Act is not meant simply for salvage operations; it does not set up a standby mechanism to be brought onto the scene only on those extreme occasions when the economy needs to be dredged out of a hole. It symbolizes the marshaling of the forces of private and public policy in support of a full and growing economy. In such an economy, performance is not measured in the dimension of employment alone; instead, a dynamic, growing produc- tive potential enables us to provide a steady expansion of output as well as full employ- ment. In such an economy, expansion facilitates the spread of economic justice, and the quality of the expansion is measured in terms of justice as well as efficiency. In such an economy, there is abundance and stability enough to permit an increasing devotion of energies to the higher values. More and more people, being able to take the needs of their stomachs for granted, can devote increasing attention to the needs of their minds and hearts. Performance to date under the Act Such are the purposes of the Employment Act. And after 7 years, it may be fairly said that we have made a start toward ful- filling these purposes. The job of course has not been finished. Indeed, since the purposes are perennially fresh, it will never be finished. But the start has been good. The progress has been tangible in the mat- ter of policy coordination. These last 7 years have been extraordinarily eventful ones in the realm of economic policy. We have negotiated a transition from major war to substantial peace with unprecedented economic success. We have experienced a relatively peaceful period of restocking and retooling in the civilian economy, while at the same time bringing the United States' economic role in international affairs into line with its newly expanded international responsibilities. And then, most recendy, we have been executing the build-up of a preparedness defense mobilization of a character which has no forerunner in Ameri- can history, and which has been managed in a fashion not to weaken the civilian economy but rather to strengthen it. I submit that in no previous period have the economic programs of Government shown so high a degree of internal consist- ency, or so clear a relationship to the needs of the over-all economy. This achievement I credit in large measure to the existence of the Employment Act, to the facilities for policy coordination with which it provides the President, and to the greater concern for systematic and interrelated programming which the Act has inspired in most Execu- 1177 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents tive Branch officials. And it has been accomplished in a Government conducting economic programs far more extensive and complex than ever before. Correspondingly, there has been greater coherence and clearer attention to the needs of the total economy in the economic legis- lation of the Congress within the last few years. Outstanding in this respect has been the tax legislation since the Korean outbreak, which has evidenced an unprecedented sense of fiscal responsibility on the part of the Congress. And this was implemented by the alert and emphatic insistence of the Con- gressional Joint Economic Committee, im- mediately after the Korean outbreak, on the need fpr a pay-as-we-go anti-inflationary tax program. Beside the improvements in policy co- ordination which the Employment Act has assisted in both the Legislative and Execu- tive Branches, it has been useful in rein- forcing the channels for communication be- tween them. It would be foolish to deny that many difficulties in legislative-executive coordination have persisted. But these are a reflection of broad political problems in our governmental process; they are no indict- ment of the mechanism of the Employment Act itself. As the basic obstacles to legis- lative-executive policy-making are progres- sively overcome, that mechanism will prove increasingly useful. More commonly overlooked but equally significant, the machinery under the Employ- ment Act has helped to bring to private enterprise a better understanding of the problems of Government, to bring to Gov- ernment a better understanding of the prob- lems of private enterprise, and to help both to integrate their actions more effectively for the benefit of the whole economy. This is the most realistic way — the American way — to avoid excessive centralization of authority. The continuous consultation among the Council of Economic Advisers, other agencies concerned with economic affairs, and representatives of workers, farmers, businessmen, and consumers has 1178 brought improved results over the years and should be continued. It has helped greatly in the development of national economic policies and in the preparation of these Economic Reports. The Employment Act's second great pur- pose, that of preventing depression, has been served well since 1946. The Nation has thus far traversed its first aftermath of a major war without a major depression. This record as a whole cannot be attributed to the Employment Act. But at the very least, the Act symbolizes the related opera- tion of many public programs, the longer- viewed character of business, labor, and agricultural decision-making, and the better coordination of private and public policies, which have featured this period. And these things together have vastly assisted in the maintenance of high prosperity. In 1947 and again in 1948, reporting under the Employment Act was an important de- vice for calling the attention of the Congress and the Nation to the inflationary danger then in process. It was pointed out that excessively rising prices, if unchecked, would ultimately result in an economic downturn. Specific actions — both private and public — were suggested to meet this threat. Where these actions were taken, they proved valuable. To the extent they were not taken, in private action or in legislation, the inflation was not sufficiendy arrested. Because inflation was not sufficiendy arrested, the postwar economy encountered its first recessionary test in 1949. When this occurred, the various reports under the Employment Act measurably helped the Government and the business community to understand that episode and to meet it suc- cessfully. In much the same fashion, the Council of Economic Advisers, in its current Economic Review, the Joint Economic Com- mittee, and other Government agencies are now laying foundations for successful transi- tion to a more civilian-oriented economy in the years ahead. And finally, there has been a strengthen- ing in practice of the Employment Act's Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] third great purpose, that of positive, con- tinuing maintenance of an economy operat- ing at maximum — which means growing — levels of employment, production, and pur- chasing power. In some ways this has been the most significant accomplishment under the Act, sometimes lost sight of by those who believe that the Act has not yet been tested because we have not had a depression to challenge its effectiveness. The periodic reports under the Employ- ment Act have helped to express in a practical way the possibility and promise of an ex- panding economy. In 1948, when there was some sentiment that employment and production were at abnormally high levels and that there must be a serious downturn before progress could be resumed, the re- ports under the Act pointed out that an economy like ours must move forward to remain healthy. By mid-1950, despite the slight recession of 1949, and before the Korean outbreak led to increasing defense outlays, the economy was registering levels of production and employment higher than in the boom year 1948. Immediately after the Korean outbreak, when there was some doubt as to whether we could gready accel- erate our security efforts without imperiling the civilian economy or without great and prolonged shortages of civilian goods, the work under the Employment Act was funda- mental to the program of over-all economic expansion which the Government adopted. What has happened since is in some respects even more striking than what happened during World War II. Starting with pro- ductive resources not nearly so slack as they were in 1939, and without the extreme pressures of total war, our national output has risen from about 285 billion dollars in 1948 (the peak before Korea) to an annual rate in excess of 350 billion dollars at the end of 1952, both measured in 1952 prices. The difference between these two figures is far greater than the increase in total security efforts, and consequently per capita civilian supplies and per capita incomes after taxes and adjusted for price change are higher now than in 1948. This is a remarkable record. It reflects the practical application of the philosophy of the Employment Act, and it opens up limitless prospects for the years ahead if the same approach is main- tained and further improved. While the details of action must change with the times, I believe it worthwhile now to set forth a few economic principles for the future — principles arising out of experience, and already justified by what their applica- tion has achieved. Basic Economic Principles for the Future (1) Full employment must be a constant objective of policy Under the Employment Act, full employ- ment means more than jobs. It means full utilization of our natural resources, our technology and science, our farms and factories, our business brains, and our labor skills. The concept of full employment values ends as well as means; it values lei- sure as well as work; it values self-develop- ment as well as dedication to a common pur- pose; it values individual initiative as well as group cooperation. In the broadest sense, full employment means maximum opportu- nity under the American system of respon- sible freedom. And it is a concept which must grow as our capacities grow. Full employment to- morrow is something different from full em- ployment today. The growth of opportu- nity, with a growing population and an expanding technology, requires a constantly expanding economy. This is needed to abolish poverty and to remove insecurity from substantial portions of our population. It offers the prospect of transforming class or group conflict into cooperation and mutual trust, because the achievement of more for all reduces the struggle of some to get more at the expense of others. Although our dedication to full employ- ment has made great strides within recent memory, we cannot afford to be complacent. We cannot assume that henceforth what 1179 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents needs to be done to promote the maintenance of full employment will be done. None of us — regardless of party — should let the idea of full employment degenerate into a slogan bandied about for narrow political advan- tage. Like freedom, it needs to be guarded zealously and translated into action on a continuing basis. Moreover, if we fail in this, our very freedom may be placed in jeopardy. The enemies of our free system say that, in the long run, we cannot succeed in this task. They point to history and to the false conclusions which Marx drew from the defects of nineteenth century industrialism. They point also to the calamity of the great depression of the early thirties. They argue that general economic insecurity must grow remorselessly in our society, leading ulti- mately to collapse and revolution. These enemies say that time and history are on their side. But history and time are on our side if we use our opportunities wisely. This does not mean that we know enough to avoid economic fluctuations completely, or that we would want to even if we could. In a dynamic, free economy, the consumer is sovereign. Business is always seeking to anticipate the nature and intensity of con- sumer demand. In response to anticipated or actual changes, the economy is marked by a ceaseless shifting of resources from areas of lesser to areas of greater demand; existing industries are growing or contracting; new industries and products make their appear- ance, requiring new skills; prices and em- ployment are being accommodated to the ebb and flow of demand; investment deci- sions are adjusted to changing conditions. This process requires the flexibility which is so characteristic of our economy. Some errors of anticipation are inevitable. The expansion of capacity may appear tempo- rarily excessive, inventories may have been overbought, and waves of excessive opti- mism and pessimism may appear in the economy. These factors must lead to some fluctuations in the general level of business. This is the price we pay for a dynamic econ- Il8o omy, and it is not too high for what we gain. But while some economic fluctuations may remain necessary or even desirable, it does not follow that we should not try our best to maintain full employment, or that we should wait until small recessions begin to spiral before seeking to reverse their course or to prevent them from growing into large depressions. Such a passive attitude is fraught with danger. For all experience has taught us that, when the economy starts to roll down hill, it becomes progressively more difficult to check the decline. It is far easier, and a far more rewarding task, to maintain the momentum of a growing economy than to reverse a downward spiral. Thus the essence of sound economic policy is constant vigilance and prompt action. The Employ- ment Act is not an antidepression measure; it is a pro-prosperity measure. It does not call for quiescence until hard times; it calls for daily vigor, in the American tradition, to make tomorrow even better than today. (2) Full employment requires the mainte- nance of economic balance Expansion is vital, because our population is growing, the number of those seeking jobs is growing, and their individual productivity is growing. But expansion cannot continue smoothly unless it is based on a sound and fair distribution of the increasing product. Our economy is built upon mass markets. Unless each important sector receives a work- able share of the expanding output, the ex- pansion will come to an end because the market demand will be lacking. Growing capacity to produce requires growing ability to buy. I have already cited the great gains we have made in bringing about better balance in our economy during the past quarter cen- tury. But while our economy now seems to be in fairly good balance, there are signs of some trends in the opposite direction. It is none too early to note these. While agriculture is highly prosperous, the most recent period has witnessed a rela- tive inability of agriculture to join in the Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] gains which other groups have registered. Even in absolute terms, there has been for a year or so an adverse trend in farm incomes. This may be looked upon with favor by those who believe that the farmer's prices have been relatively too high, or that he has re- ceived more than his fair share of the na- tional income, during recent years. But it will not be looked upon favorably by those who know that, even at the peak, the farm population as a whole did not attain real parity of income with other major sectors of the population. Nor will it be looked upon with favor by those who realize from bitter experience that any decline in relative farm prosperity is not a good omen for the economy as a whole. This is a problem of economic balance which requires active attention and far-reaching efforts. A second area, in which we should strive for even better economic balance, is in the wage structure. While the gains made by the strongly positioned wage earners have undoubtedly tended to lift labor standards generally, and while most of the working population has made real gains, there is now need for relatively more stress upon helping those at the bottom of the wage structure. This places a large responsibility upon pub- lic programs, not only such programs as minimum wage laws, but also those which by developing natural resources, facilitating private industrial growth, and improving the level of education and health, raise the productivity of these types of workers. There is also need for even better balance between the opportunities open to large and to small business, through the further encouragement of competition and the strengthening of those laws designed to prevent unfair competition and to restrain monopoly; and also through more positive programs to make the benefits of ample credit and full access to the new products of science and research and invention available to business regardless of size or financial power. And finally, there is need to work toward even better economic balance in and among 55-672—66—78 the different geographical regions of the country, through improved protection against discriminatory practices, and through Federal programs designed toward the strengthening and further equalization of opportunity for human and material devel- opment. Top priority on this list, of course, should be accorded to the broader extension of adequate health services, housing, and educational facilities, and to the further de- velopment of natural resources and industrial potentialities. (3) Full employment requires planning ahead While the Employment Act calls for an appraisal of recent economic trends and foreseeable future trends, it places main emphasis upon future needs and how these needs may best be satisfied. It imposes the responsibility to define what maximum levels of employment, production, and pur- chasing power we should seek to attain in the year or years immediately ahead. It re- quires also that we state the policies, both private and public, best suited to reach these goals. Thus the Act rejects the idea that we are the victims of unchangeable economic laws, that we are powerless to do more than fore- cast what will happen to us under the opera- tion of such laws. Instead, the Act correctly asserts that our economy within reasonable limits will be what we make it, and that intelligent human action will shape our future. In accord with this faith in human prog- ress through human endeavor, the reports under the Employment Act several years ago began to estimate what levels of employment and production should be our goals for the years ahead, taking into account the material and human resources at our disposal. These estimates were then used to analyze what kind of purchasing power, what relative flows of income to investors and consumers, to businessmen and workers and farmers, would be most conducive to the achievement of these employment and production goals. Il8l [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents This was primarily an effort in economic education, and not a blueprint for central planning in the manner of the totalitarian states. It was in the American tradition of planning — which means the cooperative effort to look ahead and to work together toward making the future better than the present. The idea has been that, if our private and public policies are geared to plan- ning for economic growth, we can achieve this growth. If businessmen and farmers plan their in- vestment programs with the realization that a steadily expanding economy will provide markets for more food and more industrial products, these regularized investment pro- grams in themselves will contribute to a high and stable rate of growth. If business and labor plan their price and wage policies to encourage the balanced ex- pansion of production and consumption, of jobs and markets, then our economic growth can be steady. And Government, because it is the most powerful single force in the economy, has the clearest responsibility to plan its opera- tions so that they will make the greatest con- tribution in the long run to economic stability and growth. Under current world condi- tions, this problem of Government is com- plicated. Government must now give prime consideration to our national security, which is even more vital than absolute economic stability or a uniform rate of economic growth. The more effectively all of these forces within the American economy work together in this kind of planning for the future, the greater the likelihood that economic fluc- tuations will be ironed out and a steadier rate of growth maintained. The less effec- tively this is done, for example if important groups in the economy assume that the traditional business cycle is inevitable and conform their actions to this belief, the more difficult it will be to maintain steady growth. It is noteworthy that efforts to encourage this kind of action have met with increasing response in recent months. Not only gov- 1182 ernmental agencies, but many planning or- ganizations supported by business, and many business organizations themselves, are now following this same approach with hearty enthusiasm. They are studying future markets and how to serve them. This is one of the most concrete signs of progress. But it is only the first taste of what may be accomplished as this process continues in the American tradition. (4) Pull employment requires responsible Government as well as responsible private enterprise Private enterprise, under our free system, bears the major responsibility for full em- ployment. This report has already set forth the basic features of that responsibility, and how much its exercise is contributing to the well-being of the American people. The role of responsible Government, while vital, is in a sense supplemental. It is the duty of Government to help im- prove the environment in which private enterprise works. In normal times, this means the minimum use of direct control over materials, prices, and wages. As soon as we safely can, in view of the world situa- tion and our own increasing productive ability, we should suspend operation of these controls. To aid in maintaining stability in the longer run, the Government should place principal reliance upon the careful use of fiscal and credit policy, along with the well-established regulatory and pro- tective programs. But in addition to encouraging an en- vironment favorable to enterprise and exert- ing a stabilizing influence, responsible Gov- ernment has an even more general task. This is to enable the people to develop to- gether those resources which in their very nature cannot be developed otherwise. Public spending, as determined by the Con- gress and other legislative bodies throughout the Nation, represents a continuing deter- mination by the people as to what part of their total productive power they wish to devote to the things which they must do Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] together instead of doing separately. While there should be true economy in public spending no less than in private spend- ing, it is obviously superficial to regard pub- lic spending as unworthy by definition. Throughout our history, the American people have recognized that their public pro- grams represent a high order of national priority, and are undertaken for this very reason. These services under current con- ditions include defense, foreign aid, benefits to veterans, social security, public education, and the like. And they include long-term resource developmental programs, aids to agriculture, aids to housing, and other efforts which, while clearly desirable in themselves, are also necessary to improve and to sup- port the functioning of the free enterprise system. All of these programs, like those of private industry, should be geared primarily to the long-run needs of the Nation. The pace and timing, however, are partly de- pendent upon changing conditions. For ex- ample, the speed-up of our defense efforts has caused us to cut back some other pro- grams to avoid undue strain. If and when we can relax our defense efforts, we shall be able to push ahead with the other programs which serve the long-term peaceful needs of the people. Since public spending diverts resources from private use, except in times of depres- sion, the burden of this diversion is borne by the people whether or not taxes are im- posed. But taxation serves to impose the burden more equitably, and in a manner least detrimental to the whole economy. For otherwise, particularly when the economy is running at very high levels, spending in excess of taxation aggravates in- flation— the most unfair and damaging way of imposing the burden. Under present conditions of very high defense spending, we have made a good record of keeping close to a balanced budget, although we should have done even better. In times of very high prosperity but a lower level of defense spending, we should accumulate a budget surplus for the independently desirable pur- pose of reducing the large national debt. If we should run into periods of declin- ing economic activity, on the other hand, we would expect some decline in revenues. But this should not frighten us into cutting back those programs which the Nation needs, and which in fact would help to cushion the decline and to restore full em- ployment. If a substantial part of our pro- ductive resources were lying idle because private enterprise could not utilize them, it would do good rather than harm to utilize them through public action even though this occasioned some deficit. (5) Full employment can be maintained without inflation It is not true that the goal of maintaining full employment must be sacrificed in order to avoid inflation. The postwar inflation was not a continuing process; most of it came in two major spurts. The first fol- lowed shortly after the war, when controls were prematurely abandoned before supply could come into balance with demand. The second took place in late 1950 and early 195 1, under the impact of the Korean out- break followed by the large-scale Chinese intervention. The fact that these two inflationary spurts came under the peculiar conditions of an immediately postwar period or the first stages of preparation for defense against the possibility of future war is no reason to neglect the lessons of this experience. We live in a world where peace is neither com- plete nor certain, and where changes in the international situation could rapidly occur. It was a mistake to abandon controls too rapidly in 1946, and we should not abandon them too rapidly now, although the outlook for stability is better now than it was at that time. Similarly, we would have been much better off if price and wage controls could have been imposed more quickly after the Korean outbreak and especially after the Chinese intervention in late 1950, instead of early in 1951. But we were handicapped 1183 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents not only by the inadequacy of legislative au- thorization, but also by the absence of a standby organization ready to cope with the first wave of inflation. The sharp price in- creases between the Chinese attack and early 195 1 were a dramatic illustration of the im- portance of adequate economic preparedness in a cold war world — a lesson we should not forget. Nonetheless, this peculiar problem of deal- ing with near-war situations should not be confused with the more general and endur- ing problem of maintaining full employment without inflation. Since early 1951, despite the pressure of the defense program, we have achieved a reasonably stable price level while enjoying full employment, and the prospect is that we will continue to do so this year. This does not mean that we have thus far learned fully how to reconcile enduring full employment with adequate price stability. Much more work needs to be done in this direction, in the field of fiscal policy, mone- tary and credit policy, and other public policies which are not limited to use in emer- gency periods. Even more important, we must learn more about the value of individ- ual and group self-restraints, about the gen- eral economy and its interrelationships, and about those private price and wage policies which may contribute most to a stable and growing economy. But we should guard against the dan- gerous solution of trying to avoid the prob- lem of preventing inflation by abandoning the pursuit of full employment. Stable prices do not outweigh the disadvantages of a sluggish or static economy; and downward- spiralling prices are certainly no blessing in a declining economy. While striving vigorously to avoid infla- tionary movements, we must realize that our primary purpose is full production and em- ployment, and the fair distribution of this abundance among all people in all groups. Price policy, like all other economic policy, should be constantly tested against these ob- jectives; it should not be allowed to obscure them. 1 184 These comments apply to monetary policy. That policy can contribute to economic stability. For example, during the infla- tionary period, as part of a comprehensive program to combat inflation, I made rec- ommendations to the Congress which were not accepted to restrain inflationary bank credit through changes in reserve require- ments. More recently, some changes in monetary policy have occurred, affecting bank credit, the bond market, and interest rates. This is one weapon in the anti-infla- tion armory, but price stability since early 1 95 1 has been the product of many economic forces and Government programs in the field of taxation, credit restraints, and material and price-wage controls, and has resulted largely from increased production. Monetary policy is a tool which must be used with great wisdom and skill. It is the function of monetary policy to control the expansion of credit, so that the total money supply will be commensurate with the needs of the economy, avoiding on the one hand excessive credit creation which might lead to speculative abuses, and avoiding on the other hand contractions in the money supply which would interfere with production, em- ployment, and investment. A money sup- ply which is in balance with the level of economic activity, adequate credit at reason- able rates of interest, and, above all, the dis- tribution of the money supply on a fair and workable basis among individuals and groups have been essential to our growing prosperity. Just as a money supply which is redundant can have unfortunate inflationary conse- quences, so an inadequate supply of money, or of credit, can push backward the business- man who must borrow to operate, the farmer who traditionally depends upon credit to produce and market his crops, the home owner who wants a decent house that he can afford to live in, and the worker who is not willing to accept lower production and more unemployment in exchange for lower prices. We must and can find ways to price Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] stability which do not threaten to bring on the very hardships they are intended to pre- vent. Excessively tight money, which means higher cost of capital, may reduce prices, but it does so by depressing productive efforts. The sound method to stabilize prices is not to reduce incomes, but to ex- pand productive effort and the output of goods. (6) Full employment requires that group interests be reconciled with the general interest Big business, big labor, and big farm organizations are permanent parts of the American economy. Few of us would change this if we could, for much of the economy's dynamism and productiveness depends upon this very circumstance. Nonetheless, thoughtful and continuing efforts are required to keep an economy of large groups from damaging conflicts of interest. There is the problem, first, of maintaining fair and peaceful bargaining among the powerfully organized private groups. The Government can help in this by protecting the development and encouraging the main- tenance of balanced bargaining power. Beyond this, however, there is the prob- lem of reconciling the interest of particular groups with the general interest. The net bargains of the organized groups — as is sometimes the case, for example, with a "price-wage spiral" — do not always add up to the public interest. Nor do they protect the broad interest of weakly organized consumers. Government intervention into such situa- tions should proceed cautiously, and be more inclined to wield the instruments of persuasion than those of authority. Above all, the effort — in both public and private quarters — should be to set the particular problem in an economy-wide framework. It is essential, for instance, that the best available thinking of farmers and farm ex- perts be brought to bear on the farm policy problem. But this is not enough; the needs of consumers, of industry, of national security — to name but a few— must also be weighed carefully in the process of develop- ing a farm program. This, indeed, is the theme of the Employment Act, and why utilization of its machinery is essential to the treatment of economic matters affecting the whole Nation. Finally, there is the fundamental problem of reconciling the effective operation of an economy of large groups with the mainte- nance of effective competition. For compe- tition is the shield of the often inarticulate consumer; and by opening doors to new ideas, new enterprises, and new successes, it is a prime source of economic progress. The Government has a long record of concern with this problem. That concern must not be allowed to flag; the cutting edge of competitive markets must not be allowed to dull. At the same time, there is no need to stimulate those speculative excesses of competition which stampede markets into violent upward and downward fluctuations. Moreover, our action in this sphere must not be the creature of stereotype. We must be quick to recognize and encourage new forms of competition, so long as they work to the advantage of the public. (7) Full employment does not depend upon war Some people say that full employment is possible only during war, or only while meeting the shortages caused by war, or only while building defenses to fight another war if it should come. This idea is fallacious, although it may have some utility if it warns us to prepare for the new economic problems of a more peaceful world. The two depressions which we suffered after World War I came when the country had no substantial economic policies to pre- vent them, and no commitment to a policy of full employment. It is true that the economic recovery be- tween 1933 and the outbreak of World War II in 1939, while very substantial, was not complete. This proves how difficult it is to 1 185 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents recover completely from a great depression once it has been allowed to occur; it does not prove that prosperity cannot be sustained once it is achieved. Moreover, the task be- tween 1933 and 1939 was to achieve recovery and reform at the same time, which is a peculiarly difficult undertaking which we should never again be faced with in the same degree. The real test of the economic re- forms then enacted came, not during the period when they were first put into effect, but in the period following World War II. It is against this later history that we must test the adequacy of these measures to avoid depression and maintain prosperity without war. After World War II, the level of defense spending was reduced by an annual rate of well over a hundred billion dollars, ex- pressed in the price level of today. While there were important war-created backlogs, the support for the very high levels of eco- nomic activity which prevailed from 1946 to mid- 1 950 was increasingly found in the satis- faction of the peacetime needs of our indus- tries and our people. I have already cited the high significance of the quick rebound of the economy from the minor fluctuation of 1949, a rebound which was fully mani- fest before the new defense program was foreseeable. By mid-1950, only a relatively small portion of our economic activity could be attributed to the shortages created during World War II, and out of our total annual output of about 310 billion dollars (measured in the prices of today) only about 20 billion dollars, or less than 7 percent, was being devoted to national defense and related inter- national purposes. This was prosperity without war. Since our response to the communist ag- gression in mid- 1 950, our prosperity has of course been accompanied and stimulated by high and rising defense spending. But it is erroneous to say that this spending has been the main prop for our economy, because taxes have been correspondingly increased so that the defense program thus far has been on a pay-as-we-go basis and conse- quently has not added the amount of infla- tionary stimulus which would otherwise have been the case. In this respect, the situa- tion is very different from that during World War II, when only about half the cost of the war was being paid out of taxes. It should also be noted that defense spending draws resources away from production for civilian use; and in this sense, the increase in civilian supplies since mid- 1950 has not been because of defense spending but despite it. We have not only been paying as we go for the defense program measured by taxes; we have also been paying for it as we go measured by the expansion of production. Despite this vastly increased production, which has exceeded the expansion of the de- fense program, full employment has been maintained during recent months when a decreasing portion of our total national out- put has gone to defense spending and an increasing portion has been supported by civilian demand despite very high taxation. This trend is now continuing and, according to the accompanying appraisal by the Coun- cil of Economic Advisers, it is likely to con- tinue throughout 1953. Here we have a strong indication, once again, that prosperity need not depend upon war. The reductions in defense spending in the years ahead, no matter how estimated, will be only a fraction of the reductions which we took in our stride after World War II. Meanwhile, we must continue to improve further our economic knowledge and under- standing, and maintain and advance those policies which have stood so well the test of critical times. If we do this — and only if we do this — nothing can be more certain in human affairs than that the American people will increasingly enjoy the blessings of pros- perity, supported not by unfavorable world conditions but rather by the essential strength and soundness of our own economy. The Promise Ahead The past illustrates the wisdom of adher- ing to the principles which have just been Il86 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 14 [376] outlined. The future will reward us well for so doing. The potential for further growth and im- provement in the American economy, even over the short span of the next 10 years, is challenging — in production, in living stand- ards, in correction of inequities, and in stable and more satisfying jobs. In addition, the opportunity and necessity for economic de- velopment in other countries of the free world represent a vastly important new frontier. With all of this, we need to sustain our national security lest opportunity be denied us altogether. New frontiers of economic growth Then years from now, a labor force of 76 to 80 million, working more effectively with better tools but somewhat fewer hours per week, could produce annually about 475-500 billion dollars worth of goods and services — measured in today's prices. This is about 40 percent above the present level, and rep- resents an average increase of slightly over 3 percent a year. The consumer portion of total production could by then come to about 340-350 billion dollars. This would be about $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country, or about 40 percent more than each person received in 1952. Over the next 10 years, we should be able to raise the average in- come of all American families correspond- ingly. With a gross national product of about 475-500 billion dollars, well over 40 billion dollars could be spent for new nonfarm plant and equipment; 15 billion or better for new housing; more than 15 billion on schools, highways, hospitals, resources development projects, and other public works. Invest- ment in American agriculture could be sub- stantially larger than the 1952 level of 5.5 billion dollars. Growth in certain industries, such as plastics, man-made fibers, and electronics, undoubtedly will continue to far outrun average growth. Machinery and electrical lines will have to expand steadily, along with the basic services of transport and electric power. Better housing, more and better automobiles, and a whole range of new or improved fixtures for the home, are well within reach over the next decade. A steady improvement in the American diet will take place. We shall run into some difficulties. Certain raw materials, especially metals, may become scarcer and more costly. The base of natural resources will wear thinner. Consumption expenditures will have to ex- pand persistently, to provide adequate mar- kets for business. But with intelligent and timely adjust- ment of private and public policies, to serve a fully employed and active economy, we can during the next decade reach the goals set forth above. New frontiers of economic justice The promise ahead is more than reaching certain levels of employment, production, and income. It also involves the further improved distribution of the benefits of economic growth, and special care for those who are less fortunately situated. Despite great progress in raising income levels and distributing these increases in a manner favorable to low and middle income groups, there are still many American fami- lies whose incomes are inadequate. In 195 1, one-quarter of all families had less than $2,000 of spendable money income; 40 per- cent had less than $3,000. Some of these families have home-produced fuel and food which raise living standards. Some are aged couples, or other families with sub- stantial assets to draw on; some are young single persons whose needs are less. But the picture does not justify complacency. The median liquid asset holding, excluding cur- rency, for the under-$2,ooo income group is less than $10; and about one-third have debts. The problem of low income families is no longer caused by general unemployment, or generally substandard wages, or very low prices for farm products. The problem 1187 [376] Jan. 14 Public Papers of the Presidents centers in families with special disabilities: racial minority families, broken families, families with sickness, families where there is lack of sufficient training and education for the principal wage earner, and farm families on substandard farms. Unskilled and service workers had an average family income of only $2,320 in 195 1. We must press forward to reduce these disabilities, and to care for them when they are unavoidable. It is feasible within a decade to raise all the families whose incomes are now below $4,000 annually to that level (measured in present-day prices), plus providing all the new families with this much income, in a full employment economy. We should set this as a target for a basic American stand- ard of living for all within a decade. In fact, this would require less than half the total gain in personal incomes that we can achieve, leaving more than half for raising still further the incomes of families already above this basic standard. In the mid- 1 930^, it was no exaggeration to speak of one-third of a Nation ill-fed, ill- clad, and ill-housed. Since then, the one- third has been reduced to one-fifth, or maybe less, on the old standards. But as our power to produce increases, our standards and goals rightly increase also. The job ahead of us remains large. About one-fourth of our nonfarm dwelling units and a much higher percentage of our farm housing are substandard. Many families still suffer from malnutrition. The amounts spent in recent years for schools and hospitals have been far less, as a percent of total na- tional production, than was spent in 1939. Living conditions in large sections of our cities are distressing, calling for vast slum clearance and redevelopment effort. Despite much progress in social security since the real beginning of the program in 1935, important gaps remain. Farmers are not covered by old-age insurance. Some 5 million wage and salary workers are still outside the unemployment insurance pro- gram. Welfare assistance is not adequate to n88 meet the requirements of many disabled people, uninsured old people, and their de- pendents. About half of our families find difficulty in meeting the cost of essential medical care. Standards of adequacy change with the times. What is enough in a 250-billion-dol- lar economy is not enough in a 350-billion- dollar economy, and will be still less than enough in a 400- or 500-billion-dollar econ- omy. For example, old-age insurance has not only been insufficiendy adjusted for changes in the price level; it has not been brought into line with the fact that the economy of today and tomorrow can afford a higher standard of living among the old than the economy of yesterday. In our long- range programs, we should provide for growth as the whole economy grows. This will have economic as well as social benefits. For if the millions of our people who are beyond working age should be unable to join in the demand for more and better products, the total market would not be adequate to support our expanding produc- tive power. What we do in these fields should not be regarded as measures necessary to save a weak economy from disaster. In- stead, we should scale these efforts to what a strong and expanding economy can and should accomplish. New frontiers of world development The international responsibilities of the United States are carried out in part through its political and moral influence, and in part through the use of its vast economic strength. The deployment of much of its economic force abroad, in the form of mili- tary and economic aid, may appear to be at the expense of lifting living standards at home. If there be any conflict between these two purposes, it does not permit the choice of one course to the exclusion of the other. Should the United States reduce sharply or prematurely the military and economic aid which is doing so much to strengthen the free world, this country might be forced to Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [377] abandon the domestic gains which it plans for the future. For if communism should gain abroad, we would have to become an armed fortress at terrific cost. The pre- requisite of a free, strong, and prosperous America is full participation in the effort to create strength and prosperity throughout the free world. In short, the free world cannot be perma- nently peaceful until the free world makes further progress toward full and more pro- ductive employment — toward release from the burden of the underemployment of its potential resources. Prosperity, like peace, is indivisible, and in our pursuit of a full employment policy at home we must never lose sight of this supremely important truth. Hence our concern with the economic development of other free countries. This is especially true of the economically less de- veloped countries and areas of the free world, where the provision of capital equipment and managerial and labor skills is a pre- requisite to speeded up economic growth and improved living standards. As the momentum of industrial and agricultural growth gathers in these less developed areas, incomes will increase, and they will buy and sell more in other markets. As the level of world trade increases, the benefits to us will involve increased supplies of many raw materials, including critically needed stra- tegic metals. We must import to live; and we must import more if we want to export at high and rising levels. We must work with other free nations to remove trade restrictions, and to make more effective the sound policy of reciprocal trade. We must not reduce aid so quickly as to undermine the improving foundations for trade. America is now confronted with the challenge to make its fair contribution toward world peace and security. Happy will be the day when we can rise to the nobler challenge of participating more fully in the advancement of world prosperity. This may be our most significant contribu- tion to human betterment in the second half of the twentieth century. Harry S. Truman note: The message and the complete report are pub- lished in "The Economic Report of the President Transmitted to the Congress, January 14, 1953" (Government Printing Office, 1953, 218 pp.). As printed above the charts have been omitted. 3 77 The President's Last News Conference. January 15, 1953 the president. I am just about to start now. [1.] I have got a couple of short state- ments here. For Tony's * benefit, I will try to read them slowly. "This is my 324th press conference since I became President. It is also my last press conference before leaving the White House. "I want to thank all of you for the courtesies you have shown me, and I want to urge all of you to continue to do your best to dig out the facts and to put them before the people. Naturally, not all of the news- papers agree with me, and I do not agree with all of them. But in spite of these 1 Ernest B. Vaccaro of the Associated Press. differences, I want to make it plain that I think it is important for our democratic system of government that every medium of communication between the citizens and their Government, particularly the Presi- dent, be kept open as far as possible. "This kind of news conference where re- porters can ask any question they can dream up) — directly to the President of the United States — illustrates how strong and how vital our democracy is. There is no other coun- try in the world where the chief of state submits to such unlimited questioning. I know, too, from experience that it is not easy to stand up here and try to answer 'off the 1189 [377] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents cuff' all kinds of questions without any advance notice. Perhaps succeeding Presi- dents will be able to figure out improve- ments and safeguards in the procedure. I hope they will never cut the direct line of communication between themselves and the people. "I know you have a great many ques- tions on your mind — for some of the answers I will have to ask you to wait until my broadcast tonight, because I have tried to put into that broadcast my feelings about the years I have spent in the White House." Now that is the end of that statement. [2.] Then I have one here that is mimeographed. "As I take leave as President and Com- mander in Chief of the Armed Forces, I would like to express my feelings concerning the job being done by men in uniform to keep our country strong so that peace can be maintained in the world. I do this be- cause from time to time there have been unfair and malicious attacks upon some of the key personnel in the Armed Forces, as well as upon other Government officials. "During my service as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, my duties have brought me into close association with the military leaders and senior officers of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and the Marines. "These men have strongly impressed me with their sincerity, their high sense of duty, and their devotion to their country. "Directly upon them rests the heart- breaking responsibility for decisions which mean life or death for the courageous men whom they lead; and directly upon them lies an ever greater responsibility of helping to protect our Nation and our ideals. "In peace or war, they have the additional responsibility for making efficient use of a vast portion of our national resources. The organization they manage is many times the size of the combined steel, oil, coal, and automobile industries. The personnel and material they handle, the transportation problems they face, the financial business they transact — all in addition to their mili- tary duties — are almost beyond compre- hension. "Because these men accept the disciplines of military service, a few people have found it easy to criticize them — to charge them with extravagance, mismanagement, carelessness, and a host of other offenses — with little fear that they will fight back, no matter how unfair or unjust the charges. Such criticism makes headlines, no doubt, but in my opin- ion is generally most unfair. "I believe that our military leaders are doing a tremendous job and doing it well. To weaken public confidence in them by destructive criticism is reprehensible. I know no group of men more deserving of our respect, gratitude, and support." I can say that from the heart, because I have been on both sides of the fence. I investigated the military thoroughly during World War II. I served in the Armed Forces during World War I, not with any very high command, but I understand what the difficulties are and the things that the men have to go through with who are re- sponsible for the operation of the military part of our Government. I am hoping that this statement will have some effect. [3.] I want to say to you, before we start the questions, that I sent another letter. [Laughter] Q. In longhand ? the president. I thought that would get you — to the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and the chairman of the Finance Committee of the House and the Senate, on the President's salary. I am hop- ing these gentlemen will release the letters to you. I don't feel that I should release them at this end, but I thought I would tell you about them so you could make some inquiries. [Laughter] [4.] And I also want to say to you that it might be interesting to you to know that since 1945, when I came up here to the White House, I have taken a thousand and 1 190 Harry S. Truman, i%$ Jan. 15 [377] two morning walks. Some of you went on one or two, but you didn't go on any more. [Laughter] 1 will try to answer questions now, as best lean. [5.] Q. Mr. President, as I understand it, that first statement is not mimeographed? There was one paragraph that — you were moving along rather rapidly there the president. Where was that, Tony? Q. About keeping the channels of com- munication open. What I was trying to make clear, are you recommending the con- tinuance of the Presidential press conference? the president. I am, yes. That is the gist of this little document. Q. What prompts you — pardon me, Mr. President — any particular reason why you the president. Well, I have been reading speculation in the press that the press con- ference is going to be discontinued, and I just don't want to see it discontinued because I want to find out what's going on, and that's the best way. [Laughter] [6.] Q. Mr. President, may I ask a question? the president. Yes, sir. Q. Not a very profound question, but have you decided on what kind of hat you are going to wear? [Laughter] the president. Eddie,2 1 don't want to get into any hat controversy. The objective of my turning the Presidency over to my suc- cessor is to do it as expeditiously and as easily as it can be done, and I am not going to get into any controversy on what I am going to wear. I will wear anything that will conform to decency. [More laughter] [7.] Q. Mr. President, as a result of your 8 years of press conferences, have you any recommendations for changes? the president. Well, no. The changes I think we made when we came over here, where everybody could sit down and where in the beginning we were not — when I was not so well acquainted — when the person asking me the question would announce 2 Edward T. Folliard of the Washington Post. his name and the paper he represented, I think that was an improvement over that where we all stood in a crowd. Q. As of now, would you change it? the president. No. No. I am perfectly satisfied with it. I get just as much fun out of it as you do. Q. What about written questions, do you think that would have the president. I don't know. I have never tried it, Pete.3 It might give you more chance to deliberate. But then I like this rough and tumble press conference we have right here. If I can't take care of myself, that's my fault. [8.] Q. Mr. President, well, getting back to the hat, I wonder if your hat would be like Abraham Lincoln's, or Dean Ache- son's — maybe that's a simple way to ask? the president. Well, I can't answer, Tony.4 [9.] Q. Mr. President, do you think the press conference should be regular — like you hold it — once a week, or twice a week? the president. I think they ought to be with regularity. I think it adds to the information of the public as to what goes on, and I think they are entitled to know what is in the President's mind. Q. Mr. President, it has been said that you made some mistakes or had some embar- rassing experiences in press conferences. Granting that, if you will — [laughter] the president. But I don't, Eddie — but go ahead . [ More laugh ter ] Q. Well, do you think the advantages all around would outweigh the risks or the embarrassments ? the president. Oh, yes, I think so. I have had all sorts of — well, in 324 press con- ferences I imagine I have had all the experi- ences that a man can possibly have at a press conference, and I have never felt that I would want to discontinue them. And I have never felt that I have been unfairly treated. 3 Raymond P. Brandt of the St. Louis Post- Dispatch. 4 Anthony H. Leviero of the New York Times. II9I [377] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents Q. Well, Mr. President, is it not true that a President, of course, by his office is some- what isolated, and that you get from us a look at outside things, too, in your confer- ences ? the president. I think that is what I said here at one press conference, that by the questions you ask, I find out a lot of things that you don't think I find out. [Laughter] [10.] Q. Mr. President, have you reached a decision in the Rosenberg case? the president. The Rosenberg case 5 hasn't come up to me; therefore, I can't reach a decision on it until it does come up. [11.] Q. Mr. President, last week, I think, Senator Watkins of Utah said in the Senate that you were considering transfer- ring the tidelands oil to the Navy? the president. I have an Executive order in the mill now, and I will turn it loose just as soon as it is ready.6 Q. Transferring the the president. Tidelands — it isn't tide- lands, it's offshore oil. Let me give you the definition of tidelands. Q. I didn't say tidelands the president. Tidelands is land from high tide to low tide, and that belongs to the adjoining State. The oil land that's in controversy is the offshore oil lands. Q. I didn't use tidelands. [Laughter] I was just — I wanted to know if it was going to be transferred to the Navy? the president. Yes. Q. How far will that extend — off the Continental Shelf? the president. Yes, that's the point where I laid claim to the jurisdiction of the United States — the Continental Shelf. Q. I don't think 6 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg had been sentenced to death for conspiring to give atomic bomb data to the Soviet Union. The presiding judge, I. R. Kauf- man, had set the execution for the week of January 12, 1953, but granted a stay to allow a plea for executive clemency. The plea was sent to the Jus- tice Department on January 10, 1953, to be presented to the President. President Truman did not make the final decision. 6 See Item 379. the president. That was long before the veto message. I laid claim to the offshore lands and fisheries in the shallow water — oh, back in 1945, if I remember correctly.7 Q. Are you making any provisions in your order for the so-called claims of Cali- fornia and Texas? the president. I am making no provi- sions except to turn the offshore oil lands over to the Navy. Q. Mr. President, for national defense purposes, I assume? the president. Of course. Of course, that's what it's for. If I had time, I would give you a disserta- tion on the necessity for maintaining all the oil reserves we possibly can, but this isn't the proper place to do it. [12.] Q. Mr. President, the new Demo- cratic leader, Senator Johnson of the Steering Committee,8 has broken with some tradition and precedent on the Hill, to put freshmen Members on major committees, to see that each freshman got one important commit- tee the president. I think that is right and correct. Q. Do you think that is a good thing? the president. I think it's a good thing. I was very lucky. When I went to the Sen- ate I got three major committees. I was put on the Appropriations Committee, on the Interstate Commerce Committee Q. As a freshman? THE PRESIDENT. -on the Public Build- ings and Grounds Committee. I was put on those three committees when I first got there, and not very long after that I was put on the Military Affairs Committee. So I think it's a good thing to have the member- ship of the committees fairly distributed. I don't think the Senators with seniority should hog all the good places on the good committees. Q. Mr. President, just for the record on 7 See Item 146. See also 1946 volume, this series, Item 189. "Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, Senate Minority Leader. 1 192 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [377] that, would you explain, there were many more committees in those days. the president. I don't know, Pete, whether there were or not. Q. Yes, sir, there were. Q. Yes, there was more multiple mem- bership. THE PRESIDENT. I See. Q. That's the reason they had the president. I am not familiar with the present committees. Q. There were many more Democrats then, I believe, and they had many more places, too. the president. Yes, but that would make it difficult for a junior Senator to get places with so many Democrats. I think there were only 17 Republicans in the Senate when I went there. [13.] Q. Mr. President, would you be accessible, when you return to private life, to newsmen? the president. I have always been ac- cessible. It's a lot easier to see me than it is to see the assistant secretary to an assist- ant secretary, or to see an editor in your paper. [Laughter] Q. What was that question, Mr. President? the president. He wanted to know if I would be accessible when I went back to private life. [14.] Q. Mr. President, you said the Executive order was in the mill. When do you think that will be issued? the president. Well, as quickly as we can get it ready. I can't give you an exact date. Q. Not necessarily today, would it be? Q. Before you leave office ? the president. Of course. I can't issue it after I leave office. What are you talking about? What is it, Tony? Q. With the Executive order on the off- shore oil, will you issue a statement ex- plaining it — the reason for it? the president. Yes, I will. Yes, I will. Q. You have described it in the past as a billion dollar steal, I think the president. You left off two zeros. It's a hundred billion dollars. Q. You are right. the president. A hundred billion dollars. Q. Millions, or billions? the president. A hundred billion. That hundred billion barrels is the estimate. Q. Could you give us a little preview of how the steal would occur? the president. No, no. I will have to cover that in the statement. I have said all I can say on the subject now. Q. Mr. President, you said you would — I didn't quite understand the question awhile ago, did you say that you would turn over to the Navy the oil in the submerged lands? THE PRESIDENT. Yes. Q. Now that doesn't apply to any other commercial products that might be in the submerged lands? the president. It affects oil only. I don't think the Navy could use fish very well ! [Laughter] [15.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us anything further about your plans when you leave office, in a personal vein? the president. Well, no, I don't think I am able to give you any definite program be- cause I really haven't any definite plans. I will tell you what I am going to do on Inauguration Day, if that will help you. Q. Yes, sir, that would help a lot. the president. I am going to the inaugu- ration with the President-elect. I will ride in the same car — several other people in the car — I think Joe Martin9 is one. After the inauguration, I shall go out to Dean Acheson's 10 house in Georgetown and have lunch with the members of my Cabinet that are leaving office, and after that I expect I will go on to Matt Connelly's n apartment and take a nap; and then after that I will go down and get on the train. Q. Will Mrs. Truman be with you all this time? 9 Representative Joseph W. Martin, Jr., of Massachusetts. 10 Secretary of State. 11 Matthew J. Connelly, Appointments Secretary to the President. 1 193 [377] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents the president. Yes. And Margaret too. [16.] Q. In your Economic Message you took no notice of the division within your Council of Economic Advisers. the president. It wasn't necessary, Pete. Q. In other words, you agree with the majority, rather than Mr. Clark? 12 the president. My message13 explained exactly what I mean. Q. You thought that wasn't worthy the president. No — too late in my ad- ministration to get into an internecine feud. [17.] Q. Mr. President, are you going to write your memoirs ? the president. Well, I can't answer that. I don't know. Maybe they are not worth writing. Can't tell. Q. You mean that you are not going to write them immediately? THE PRESIDENT. No. Q. We understand that you have had a number of offers? the president. That's correct. That's correct. But I haven't made up my mind on just what I am going to do. [18.] Q. Mr. President, during the cam- paign you indulged in some pretty severe criticism of a number of generals, chiefly General Eisenhower. I wonder if you had any the president. Those campaign speeches speak for themselves, and I do not want to comment on them now. There isn't any use in it. The campaign is over and the election has been won. We are trying to get over that there should be sweetness and light. Now let's not start up any trouble. Q. I want to get a statement, however, about those other generals. I wonder if — whom you had in mind? I remember, I be- lieve General Bradley was criticized by Sena- tor Taft 14 during the campaign 12 John D. Clark, Vice Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. 13 See Item 376. "General of the Army Omar N. Bradley and Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio. the president. I don't want to go into any personalities and details. You can take this statement and make anything out of it you choose. It speaks for itself. [19.] Q. Mr. President, when is Mar- garet coming down here ? the president. Let's see what time it is — [looking at his watch}. I expect she's over at the White House now. Q. Is she going to Independence with you? the president. No, she is not. Q. Are you going to ride in the Magel- lan 15 to Independence? the president. The President-elect of- fered the use of the car. We had asked him if he would like to have it to come to Wash- ington, and he said no, he had made other arrangements, but if I wanted to use it to go home he would be glad to have me do it. Q. Yes, sir. the president. And I said, of course, thank you. And I am going to take it. [20.] Q. Mr. President, there is one question that is left unanswered. the president. What's that? Q. Well, I mean, you didn't want to get into any controversy over a homburg. Does that mean you will wear a homburg? the president. Tony, I have no further things to say about what I will wrear. I said I will wear anything that will be decent and I can go outdoors in. [Laughter'] [21.] Q. Do you think the return of the Republicans to power means a realignment of the political parties after the 4 years ? THE PRESIDENT. No, I don't. Q. Do you think there will be a divi- sion the president. The Democrats have always been the progressive party and the Republicans have always been the conserva- tive party. There won't be any change. Q. You are including the Southern Democrats in progressives? the president. Yes, I am including the 15 The Ferdinand Magellan, the Presidential rail- road car. 1194 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [377] Southern Democrats. You will find that they will become very progressive when they don't have the chairmanships. [Laughter] [22.] Q. Mr. President, have you signed the commission for United States Attorney for Mr. Johnson of Nevada? 16 the president. I don't remember whether I have or not. The thing has been pending in my office for quite some time. Q. Yes, it has — for some time. the president. Yes, it has. [23.] Q. Mr. President, in view of your several trips to Latin American countries, and extensive business in that area, would you wish to make any general observa- tions regarding United States relations with Latin American Republics? the president. Well, of course, I have always been very, very favorable to the good-neighbor policy. I think that un- doubtedly will continue just as it always has. [24.] Q. Mr. President, have you any ideas on what should be done with the evi- dence turned up on Senator McCarthy by that subcommittee? 17 the president. I understand that the Justice Department is making an investiga- tion. It has been referred to the Justice De- partment, so I have no comment to make on it. [25.] Q. Mr. President, he just asked about South America. I would like to ask about Canada — the export of Texas natural gas to eastern Canada in exchange for west- ern Canadian natural gas into the western United States. Have you any — as you leave office — and of course this will become a hot issue during the course of next year — have you any thoughts on the subject? the president. No, I haven't given the matter any thought at all, but I am always hopeful that the Canadians and the United States will always be friendly, and that the border will always be as free as it possibly can be. 18 James William Johnson, Jr., of Fallon, Nev. 17 Senate Rules Subcommittee. [26.] Q. Mr. President, have you any observations on the oil companies who re- fused to turn over their books? the president. No, I have no comment. [27.] Q. Mr. President, could you tell us what you and Mr. Mitchell 18 talked about today? the president. Politics. That's all the chairman of the committee ever comes to see the President for, is to talk politics. [28.] Q. Have you any comment on this anti-Zionist campaign that Russia is con- ducting? the president. No, I have no comment. [29.] Q. Are you going to run for Sena- tor from Missouri ? the president. No, I can't say that I will. The Senator from Missouri doesn't come up for — I think it's 4 years yet. Q. Mr. President, speaking of politics, can you visualize yourself stumping the country again on behalf of anybody in the years ahead? the president. Well now, Eddie, I can't make any prophecies along that line. You see, I will be a private citizen. I will have to be — as I was in this last campaign — I will have to do what the chairman of the Na- tional Committee asks me to do, and of course I am going to help the Democrats all I can, every time I can. [3°-] Q- Mr. President, when a 5-star general is put on the inactive list, I think he gets a pension and a salary of about $19,000 a year. the president. They are never put on the inactive list. They are not put on the in- active list. It was provided that they would be the elder statesmen of the military, that they would be on active duty at the call of the President all the time. Q. My question was, does the President of the United States get any such pension as that? the president. No. The President of the United States is going to have to com- 18 Stephen A. Mitchell, Chairman, Democratic National Committee. 1195 [377] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents mence begging meals after the 20th. [Laughter] He is getting a lot of invita- tions, so I don't believe he will go hungry. Q. Mr. President, if you don't mind this question — as a result of what has been done about the President's salary, will you be in a position so that you won't have to — oh, say, join an insurance company or become an editor, or something like that? the president. Yes, Eddie, but I wouldn't do that under any circumstances. I think — as I told you time and again, this Presidential Office — now remember I am talking about the office — is the greatest and most power- ful office in the history of the world. It's the greatest honor that can come to any man in the world. And no man, I am sure, would want to exploit it. And under no circumstances would I do anything that would appear to use the great office which I have had the honor to hold as a means for exploitation. Q. Mr. President, one of the suggestions that has been made for future ex-Presidents is that they be permitted access to the floor of the Senate and take part in the debates there. the president. That was the suggestion while I was in the Senate. I made it. Q. Yes, sir. Well now, sir, from your experience as Senator and President, now that you have been both, could you point out how you feel about that suggestion now? the president. My position hasn't changed although I can't talk about it very much, be- cause I am affected by it now. When I first made the suggestion, there was no idea that I ever would be affected by it. Q. Wouldn't you like to talk about it, though, sir, in terms of what an ex-President could do in terms of service to his country? the president. I think the ex-President can always be of service to his country. I made use of the services of the only ex- President living while I was President. He did a marvelous job, at my suggestion, in the food distribution in 1946. He did a marvelous job as Chairman of the Commis- sion on the Reorganization of the Govern- II96 ment.19 Dean Acheson was the Vice Chair- man of that same Commission, and they came up with some wonderful suggestions — about three-fourths of which we put into effect. Q. I don't want to keep pressing you, sir. Do you have any idea that might usefully be put forward for the use of ex-Presidents of the United States? the president. Well, that is a matter that is up to the people of the United States themselves. The ex-President can't go around begging for a job, that's a certainty. I want to say to you people that I do really appreciate the privilege I have had of becoming acquainted with all of you, of talking to you frankly as best I can, and answering your questions straight from the shoulder. And I hope — one thing I might like to do — I might like to come back here and get me a card to the Press Gallery and see if I couldn't learn something from you people, after I become a private citizen. Maybe that would give me a chance to do something constructive. But I do want to say to you that it has been a pleasure to me; and as I remarked awhile ago, I get as much kick out of these things as you have. I hope all of you will have a happy and prosperous time from now on, and that you will have just as much fun with my suc- cessor as you have with me. Q. Mr. President — [warm and prolonged applause for the President], Thank you! note: President Truman's three hundred and twenty-fourth news conference was held in the Indian Treaty Room (Room 474) in the Executive Office Building at 4 p.m. on Thursday, January 15, 1953. The White House Official Reporter noted that at the beginning of the President's final news con- ference he shook hands with all those present, and that newsreel and still pictures were taken of the conference. [The President's three hundred and twenty-third 19 In 1946 Herbert Hoover served as Honorary Chairman of the Famine Emergency Committee and in 1947-49 was Chairman of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [378] news conference, his "budget seminar" of January 8> 1 9 53 ? was not transcribed by the White House Official Reporter. The tape recording is incom- plete and the voices are not always audible. The conference, therefore, has not been included in this volume.] 378 The President's Farewell Address to the American People. January 15, 1953 [ Broadcast from his office in the White House at 10:30 p.m. ] My fellow Americans: I am happy to have this opportunity to talk to you once more before I leave the White House. Next Tuesday, General Eisenhower will be inaugurated as President of the United States. A short time after the new President takes his oath of office, I will be on the train going back home to Independence, Missouri. I will once again be a plain, private citizen of this great Republic. That is as it should be. Inauguration Day will be a great demonstration of our demo- cratic process. I am glad to be a part of it — glad to wish General Eisenhower all possible success, as he begins his term — glad the whole world will have a chance to see how simply and how peacefully our American system transfers the vast power of the Presi- dency from my hands to his. It is a good object lesson in democracy. I am very proud of it. And I know you are, too. During the last 2 months I have done my best to make this transfer an orderly one. I have talked with my successor on the af- fairs of the country, both foreign and domes- tic, and my Cabinet officers have talked with their successors. I want to say that General Eisenhower and his associates have co- operated fully in this effort. Such an orderly transfer from one party to another has never taken place before in our history. I think a real precedent has been set. In speaking to you tonight, I have no new revelations to make — no political state- ments— no policy announcements. There are simply a few things in my heart that I want to say to you. I want to say "goodby" and "thanks for your help." And I want to talk to you a little while about what has happened since I became your President. I am speaking to you from the room where I have worked since April 12, 1945. This is the President's office in the West Wing of the White House. This is the desk where I have signed most of the papers that em- bodied the decisions I have made as Presi- dent. It has been the desk of many Presi- dents, and will be the desk of many more. Since I became President, I have been to Europe, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands — Wake Island and Hawaii. I have visited almost every State in the Union. I have traveled 135,000 miles by air, 77,000 by rail, and 17,000 by ship. But the mail always followed me, and wher- ever I happened to be, that's where the office of the President was. The greatest part of the President's job is to make decisions — big ones and small ones, dozens of them almost every day. The pa- pers may circulate around the Government for a while but they finally reach this desk. And then, there's no place else for them to go. The President — whoever he is — has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job. That's what I've been doing here in this room, for almost 8 years. And over in the main part of the White House, there's a study on the second floor — a room much like this one — where I have worked at night and early in the morning on the papers I couldn't get to at the office. Of course, for more than 3 years Mrs. Tru- man and I were not living in the White House. We were across the street in the 1 197 [378] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents Blair House. That was when the White House almost fell down on us and had to be rebuilt. I had a study over at the Blair House, too, but living in the Blair House was not as convenient as living in the White House. The Secret Service wouldn't let me walk across the street, so I had to get in a car every morning to cross the street to the White House office, again at noon to go to the Blair House for lunch, again to go back to the office after lunch, and finally take an automobile at night to return to the Blair House. Fantastic, isn't it? But necessary, so my guards thought — and they are the bosses on such matters as that. Now, of course, we're back in the White House. It is in very good condition, and General Eisenhower will be able to take up his residence in the house and work right here. That will be much more convenient for him, and I'm very glad the renovation job was all completed before his term began. Your new President is taking office in quite different circumstances than when I became President 8 years ago. On April 12, 1945, I nad been presiding over the Senate in my capacity as Vice President. When the Senate recessed about 5 o'clock in the after- noon, I walked over to the office of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Rayburn, to dis- cuss pending legislation. As soon as I ar- rived, I was told that Mr. Early, one of President Roosevelt's secretaries, wanted me to call. I reached Mr. Early, and he told me to come to the White House as quickly as possible, to enter by way of the Pennsylvania Avenue entrance, and to come to Mrs. Roosevelt's study. When I arrived, Mrs. Roosevelt told me the tragic news, and I felt the shock that all of you felt a little later — when the word came over the radio and appeared in the newspapers. President Roosevelt had died. I offered to do anything I could for Mrs. Roosevelt, and then I asked the Secretary of State to call the Cabinet together. At 7:09 p.m. I was sworn in as President by Chief Justice Stone in the Cabinet Room. Things were happening fast in those days. The San Francisco conference to organize the United Nations had been called for April 25th. I was asked if that meeting would go forward. I announced that it would. That was my first decision. After attending President Roosevelt's fu- neral, I went to the Hall of the House of Representatives and told a joint session of the Congress that I would carry on President Roosevelt's policies. On May 7th, Germany surrendered. The announcement was made on May 8th, my 6 1 st birthday. Mr. Churchill called me shordy after that and wanted a meeting with me and Prime Minister Stalin of Russia. Later on, a meet- ing was agreed upon, and Churchill, Stalin, and I met at Potsdam in Germany. Meanwhile, the first atomic explosion took place out in the New Mexico desert. The war against Japan was still going on. I made the decision that the atomic bomb had to be used to end it. I made that deci- sion in the conviction it would save hun- dreds of thousands of lives — Japanese as well as American. Japan surrendered, and we were faced with the huge problems of bring- ing the troops home and reconverting the economy from war to peace. All these things happened within just a little over 4 months — from April to August 1945. I tell you this to illustrate the tremen- dous scope of the work your President has to do. And all these emergencies and all the de- velopments to meet them have required the President to put in long hours — usually 17 hours a day, with no payment for overtime. I sign my name, on the average, 600 times a day, see and talk to hundreds of people every month, shake hands with thousands every year, and still carry on the business of the largest going concern in the whole world. There is no job like it on the face of the earth — in the power which is concentrated here at this desk, and in the responsibility and difficulty of the decisions. I want all of you to realize how big a job, how hard a job, it is — not for my sake, be- II98 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [378] cause I am stepping out of it — but for the sake of my successor. He needs the under- standing and the help of every citizen. It is not enough for you to come out once every 4 years and vote for a candidate, and then go back home and say, "Well, I've done my part, now let the new President do the worrying." He can't do the job alone. Regardless of your politics, whether you are Republican or Democrat, your fate is tied up with what is done here in this room. The President is President of the whole country. We must give him our support as citizens of the United States. He will have mine, and I want you to give him yours. I suppose that history will remember my term in office as the years when the "cold war" began to overshadow our lives. I have had hardly a day in office that has not been dominated by this all-embracing struggle — this conflict between those who love free- dom and those who would lead the world back into slavery and darkness. And al- ways in the background there has been the atomic bomb. But when history says that my term of office saw the beginning of the cold war, it will also say that in those 8 years we have set the course that can win it. We have succeeded in carving out a new set of policies to attain peace — positive policies, policies of world leadership, policies that express faith in other free people. We have averted world war III up to now, and we may already have succeeded in establishing conditions which can keep that war from happening as far ahead as man can see. These are great and historic achievements that we can all be proud of. Think of the difference between our course now and our course 30 years ago. After the First World War we withdrew from world affairs — we failed to act in concert with other peoples against aggression — we helped to kill the League of Nations — and we built up tariff barriers that strangled world trade. This time, we avoided those mistakes. We helped to found and sustain the United Nations. We have welded alliances that include the greater part of the free world. And we have gone ahead with other free countries to help build their economies and link us all to- gether in a healthy world trade. Think back for a moment to the 1930^ and you will see the difference. The Japa- nese moved into Manchuria, and free men did not act. The Fascists moved into Ethiopia, and we did not act. The Nazis marched into the Rhineland, into Austria, into Czechoslovakia, and free men were paralyzed for lack of strength and unity and will. Think about those years of weakness and indecision, and the World War II which was their evil result. Then think about the speed and courage and decisiveness with which we have moved against the Commu- nist threat since World War II. The first crisis came in 1945 and 1946, when the Soviet Union refused to honor its agreement to remove its troops from Iran. Members of my Cabinet came to me and asked if we were ready to take the risk that a firm stand involved. I replied that we were. So we took our stand — we made it clear to the Soviet Union that we expected them to honor their agreement — and the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Iran. Then, in early 1947, the Soviet Union threatened Greece and Turkey. The British sent me a message saying they could no longer keep their forces in that area. Some- thing had to be done at once, or the eastern Mediterranean would be taken over by the Communists. On March 12th, I went be- fore the Congress and stated our determina- tion to help the people of Greece and Turkey maintain their independence. Today, Greece is still free and independent; and Turkey is a bulwark of strength at a strategic corner of the world. Then came the Marshall plan which saved Europe, the heroic Berlin airlift, and our military aid programs. We inaugurated the North Atlantic Pact, the Rio Pact binding the Western Hemi- 1199 [378] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents sphere together, and the defense pacts with countries of the Far Pacific. Most important of all, we acted in Korea. I was in Independence, Missouri, in June 1950, when Secretary Acheson telephoned me and gave me the news about the in- vasion of Korea. I told the Secretary to lay the matter at once before the United Nations, and I came on back to Washington. Flying back over the fladands of the Mid- dle West and over the Appalachians that summer afternoon, I had a lot of time to think. I turned the problem over in my mind in many ways, but my thoughts kept coming back to the logo's — to Manchuria, to Ethiopia, the Rhineland, Austria, and finally to Munich. Here was history repeating itself. Here was another probing action, another testing action. If we let the Republic of Korea go under, some other country would be next, and then another. And all the time, the courage and confidence of the free world would be ebbing away, just as it did in the 1930's. And the United Nations would go the way of the League of Nations. When I reached Washington, I met im- mediately with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and General Bradley, and the other civilian and military officials who had information and advice to help me decide on what to do. We talked about the problems long and hard. We considered those problems very carefully. It was not easy to make the decision to send American boys again into battle. I was a soldier in the First World War, and I know what a soldier goes through. I know well the anguish that mothers and fathers and families go through. So I knew what was ahead if we acted in Korea. But after all this was said, we realized that the issue was whether there would be fight- ing in a limited area now or on a much larger scale later on — whether there would be some casualties now or many more casualties later. So a decision was reached — the decision I believe was the most important in my time as President of the United States. In the days that followed, the most heart- ening fact was that the American people clearly agreed with the decision. And in Korea, our men are fighting as valiandy as Americans have ever fought — because they know they are fighting in the same cause of freedom in which Americans have stood ever since the beginning of the Republic. Where free men had failed the test before, this time we met the test. We met it firmly. We met it successfully. The aggression has been repelled. The Communists have seen their hopes of easy conquest go down the drain. The deter- mination of free people to defend them- selves has been made clear to the Kremlin. As I have thought about our worldwide struggle with the Communists these past 8 years — day in and day out — I have never once doubted that you, the people of our country, have the will to do what is neces- sary to win this terrible fight against com- munism. I know the people of this country have that will and determination, and I have always depended on it. Because I have been sure of that, I have been able to make necessary decisions even though they called for sacrifices by all of us. And I have not been wrong in my judgment of the Ameri- can people. That same assurance of our people's deter- mination will be General Eisenhower's greatest source of strength in carrying on this struggle. Now, once in a while, I get a letter from some impatient person asking, why don't we get it over with? Why don't we issue an ultimatum, make all-out war, drop the atomic bomb? For most Americans, the answer is quite simple: We are not made that way. We are a moral people. Peace is our goal, with justice and freedom. We cannot, of our own free will, violate the very principles that we are striving to defend. The whole 1200 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 15 [378] purpose of what we are doing is to prevent world war III. Starting a war is no way to make peace. But if anyone still thinks that just this once, bad means can bring good ends, then let me remind you of this: We are living in the 8th year of the atomic age. We are not the only nation that is learning to unleash the power of the atom. A third world war might dig the grave not only of our Com- munist opponents but also of our own society, our world as well as theirs. Starting an atomic war is totally unthink- able for rational men. Then, some of you may ask, when and how will the cold war end? I think I can answer that simply. The Communist world has great resources, and it looks strong. But there is a fatal flaw in their society. Theirs is a godless system, a system of slavery; there is no freedom in it, no consent. The Iron Curtain, the secret police, the constant purges, all these are symptoms of a great basic weakness — the rulers' fear of their own people. In the long run the strength of our free society, and our ideals, will prevail over a system that has respect for neither God nor man. Last week, in my State of the Union Mes- sage to the Congress — and I hope you will all take the time to read it — I explained how I think we will finally win through. As the free world grows stronger, more united, more attractive to men on both sides of the Iron Curtain — and as the Soviet hopes for easy expansion are blocked — then there will have to come a time of change in the Soviet world. Nobody can say for sure when that is going to be, or exactly how it will come about, whether by revolution, or trouble in the satellite states, or by a change inside the Kremlin. Whether the Communist rulers shift their policies of their own free will — or whether the change comes about in some other way — I have not a doubt in the world that a change will occur. I have a deep and abiding faith in the destiny of free men. With patience and courage, we shall some day move on into a new era — a wonderful golden age — an age when we can use the peaceful tools that sci- ence has forged for us to do away with poverty and human misery everywhere on earth. Think what can be done, once our capital, our skills, our science — most of all atomic energy — can be released from the tasks of defense and turned wholly to peaceful pur- poses all around the world. There is no end to what can be done. I can't help but dream out loud just a little here. The Tigris and Euphrates Valley can be made to bloom as it did in the times of Babylon and Nineveh. Israel can be made the country of milk and honey as it was in the time of Joshua. There is a plateau in Ethiopia some 6,000 to 8,000 feet high, that has 65,000 square miles of land just exacdy like the corn belt in northern Illinois. Enough food can be raised there to feed a hundred million people. There are places in South America — places in Colombia and Venezuela and Brazil — just like that plateau in Ethiopia — places where food could be raised for millions of people. These things can be done, and they are self-liquidating projects. If we can get peace and safety in the world under the United Nations, the developments will come so fast we will not recognize the world in which we now live. This is our dream of the future — our pic- ture of the world we hope to have when the Communist threat is overcome. I've talked a lot tonight about the menace of communism — and our fight against it — because that is the overriding issue of our time. But there are some other things we've done that history will record. One of them is that we in America have learned how to attain real prosperity for our people. We have 62% million people at work. Businessmen, farmers, laborers, white-collar 1201 [378] Jan. 15 Public Papers of the Presidents people, all have better incomes and more of the good things of life than ever before in the history of the world. There hasn't been a failure of an insured bank in nearly 9 years. No depositor has lost a cent in that period. And the income of our people has been fairly distributed, perhaps more so than at any other time in recent history. We have made progress in spreading the blessings of American life to all of our peo- ple. There has been a tremendous awaken- ing of the American conscience on the great issues of civil rights — equal economic op- portunities, equal rights of citizenship, and equal educational opportunities for all our people, whatever their race or religion or status of birth. So, as I empty the drawers of this desk, and as Mrs. Truman and I leave the White House, we have no regret. We feel we have done our best in the public service. I hope and believe we have contributed to the wel- fare of this Nation and to the peace of the world. When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task. But the work was mine to do, and I had to do it. And I have tried to give it everything that was in me. Through all of it, through all the years that I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware I did not really work alone — that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save as the people helped with their support. I have had that help — you have given me that support — on all our great essential undertakings to build the free world's strength and keep the peace. Those are the big things. Those are the things we have done together. For that I shall be grateful, always. And now, the time has come for me to say good night — and God bless you all. 379 Statement by the President Upon Issuing Order Setting Aside Submerged Lands of the Continental Shelf as a Naval Petroleum Reserve. January 16, 1953 agencies of the Federal Government, par- ticularly the three military departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. The domestic production of petroleum during the year 1952, according to the latest statistics, averaged about 6.8 million barrels per day. It will be seen, therefore, that the production of petroleum in the United States during 1952 fell far short of meeting the consumption of petroleum products. This deficit is expected to grow larger year by I HAVE today issued an Executive order setting aside the submerged lands of the Continental Shelf as a naval petroleum reserve, to be administered by the Secretary of the Navy. The great oil and gas deposits in these lands will be conserved and utilized in order to promote the security of the Na- tion. This is an important step in the inter- est of the national defense. The tremendous importance of oil to the Government of the United States in these times is difficult to overestimate. The latest statistics indicate that, during the year 1952, the domestic consumption of petroleum products in the United States averaged about 7.3 million barrels per day. A large part of that daily consumption of petroleum products was attributable to year. In view of the great demand for oil by the Government for defense purposes, it is of the utmost importance that the vast oil deposits in the Continental Shelf, which are assets of all the people of the United States, be con- served and utilized for the national security. 1202 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 16 [381] At the present time, there are a total of 22 known oil fields in the Continental Shelf adjacent to the coasts of California, Louisi- ana, and Texas. These known fields con- tain estimated proven reserves aggregating approximately 492 million barrels of oil. Moreover, it has been estimated, on the basis of available scientific data, that the Con- tinental Shelf adjacent to the coasts of these three States actually contains a grand total of about 15 billion barrels of oil. In order that these great reservoirs of oil, which belong to all the people of the United States and are of such crucial importance from the standpoint of the national security, may be preserved for the Nation, I have set them aside as a naval petroleum reserve. The Executive order does not require the shutdown of any existing production of oil from submerged lands of the Continental Shelf. Special provisions have been inserted in the order to permit the continuation of this existing production. It has been, and still is, my firm convic- tion that it would be the height of folly for the United States to give away the vast quan- tities of oil contained in the Continental Shelf, and then buy back this same oil at stiff prices for use by the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in the defense of the Nation. note: The President referred to Executive Order 10426 "Setting Aside Submerged Lands of the Continental Shelf as a Naval Petroleum Reserve" (3 CFR, 1949-53 Comp., p. 924). 380 Letter Accepting Resignation of Dean Acheson as Secretary of State. January 16, 1953 Dear Dean: I have your letter of resignation, effective at the end of my term, January 20, 1953, and I accept it with warm thanks for a job well done. I am glad I've had you with me all the way. You have been my good right hand. There is no need for me to go into detail about all that you have accomplished. Certainly no man is more responsible than you for pulling together the people of the free world, and strengthening their will and their determina- tion to be strong and free. I would place you among the very great- est of the Secretaries of State this country has had. Neither Jefferson nor Seward showed more cool courage and steadfast judgment. Our association has been a grand experi- ence, from start to finish. I hope Mrs. Acheson prevails on you to take a good long rest. You deserve it. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Acheson served as Assistant Secretary of State from February i, 1941, to August 16, 1945, as Under Secretary of State from August 27, 1945, to June 30, 1947, and as Secretary of State from January 21, 1949, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 7, was released with the President's reply. 381 Letter Accepting Resignation of John W. Snyder as Secretary of the Treasury. January 16, 1953 Dear John: I am sure that no President ever received more dependable advice and assistance than you have given me during the period of al- most eight years since I called you back from St. Louis in April 1945, to join my adminis- tration. Your service as Federal Loan Administra- tor, as Director of the Office of War Mobili- zation and Reconversion, and finally as Sec- 1203 [38i] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents retary of the Treasury has been as beneficial to the country as it has been helpful to me personally. Your direction of the Govern- ment's fiscal affairs, your handling of many problems and responsibilities of international economic policy, and your outstanding leadership in the improvement of Govern- ment administration, all merit not only my own personal appreciation and that of your associates in the Government, but also the esteem of every citizen. The judgment and understanding with which you have represented the United States — and on occasion, the President per- sonally— in international consultations here and abroad have been other evidences of the honor and competence with which you filled a place of first importance in the public service. I appreciate above all your unselfish and unfailing friendship. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Snyder served as Federal Loan Adminis- trator from April 30, 1945, to July 23, 1945, as Director of the Office of War Mobilization and Re- conversion from July 23, 1945, to June 25, 1946, and as Secretary of the Treasury from June 25, 1946, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 14, was released with the President's reply. 382 Letter Accepting Resignation of James P. McGranery as the Attorney General. January 16, 1953 Dear Jim: As I accept your resignation, effective at the close of my term January 20, 1953, 1 want to express to you my appreciation of your willingness to give up the lifetime tenure of a Judgeship to accept, at my request, the office of Attorney General of the United States. To anyone who knows you, your sense of patriotic duty comes as no surprise. I told the truth about you when I awarded you the Medal for Merit in March 1946. As Assist- ant to the Attorney General, you were out- standing in your supervision of the agencies of the Department of Justice that were re- sponsible for our wartime internal security. As Attorney General, in a time of inter- national tension, you have again helped to protect our democratic institutions by the vigorous prosecution of those who would undermine and destroy them. And in your scrupulous regard for individual rights and due process, you have strengthened the basic freedoms which are the heart of our democracy. For all these things and for your prompt acceptance of my call to duty, I am deeply grateful. It is my sincere wish that the days and years to come may bring all the best things in life to you and to your family. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. McGranery served as The Assistant to the Attorney General from November 10, 1943, to Octo- ber 8, 1946, as United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from October 9, 1946, to May 26, 1952, and as Attorney General from May 27, 1952, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 15, was released with the President's reply. 383 Letter Accepting Resignation of Jesse M. Donaldson as Postmaster General. January 16, 1953 Dear Jess: I have your resignation as Postmaster General and I accede to your wishes, effec- tive at the end of my term of office, January 20, 1953. I have been fortunate to have you in my 1204 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 16 [384] official family. Your mastery of every phase of operations in the postal service is out- standing in the history of the Department, and I appreciate the fine manner in which you have conducted the affairs of the postal establishment. Also I have valued your wis- dom and guidance, confident that you would put first the best interests of the United States and the American people. Because you are a man who would never compromise principle for expediency, you have earned the respect of your countrymen as Postmaster General. You gave all that was in you, unselfishly and loyally, to me and to the Government during my adminis- tration. As a career postal employee for more than forty-five years and as a public official, you have served your country faith- fully and well. I hope that you will have a little time for leisure that has been denied you by your busy life. Whatever you do and wherever you are, my good wishes are with you. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Donaldson served as First Assistant Post- master General from July 15, 1945, to December 16, 1947, and as Postmaster General to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 5, was released with the President's reply. 384 Letter Accepting Resignation of Oscar Chapman as Secretary of the Interior. January 16, 1953 [ Released January 16, 1953. Dated January 13, 1953 ] Dear Oscar: I have your letter of January seventh and, in accordance with your wish, I am accepting your resignation effective at the end of my term of office. As I do so, I want you to know that I have thoroughly enjoyed our association and that I am grateful for the energy and wisdom with which you have administered the Department of Interior. I am proud of having so many career civil servants in my Cabinet. I once said in a speech that you know more about the In- terior Department than any other man who has ever been Secretary of the Interior. You have done an outstanding job for your Gov- ernment. The conservation and wise devel- opment of our natural resources, which are entrusted to your Department, have been in good hands. Under your administration, great forward steps have been taken in recla- mation programs and the expansion of pub- lic power in the West. In years to come your important contribu- tion to the advancement of human rights will also be recognized, I am sure. You have fought hard for statehood for Alaska and Hawaii; you were instrumental in the development of local self-government lead- ing to the formation of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; you have fought vigorously for home rule for the District of Columbia; and you have worked with determination and vigor for the full enjoyment of the rights and privileges of citizenship in all Federal jurisdictions. I know you will never cease to work for the public good and that you will bring to your future work, whatever it may be, the same spirit with which you have resolved so many difficult problems in the past seven years. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Chapman served as Assistant Secretary of the Interior from May 5, 1933, to March 26, 1946, as Under Secretary of the Interior from March 27, 1946, to December 1, 1949, and as Sec- retary of the Interior to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 7, was released with the President's reply. 55-672- -79 1205 [3»5] Jan. 16 Public Papers of the Presidents 385 Letter Accepting Resignation of Charles F. Brannan as Secretary of Agriculture. January 16, 1953 [ Released January 16, 1953. Dated January 13, 1953 ] Dear Charlie: I have received your letter of January eighth and, in accordance with your wish, I am accepting your resignation effective at the close of my term of office. I want to tell you what a genuine pleasure it has been to have you in my Cabinet during the past four and a half years. Our working rela- tionships have always been cordial and I have leaned heavily on your wise counsel on many matters of public concern. The remarkable progress of American agriculture during your tenure, together with recommendations you have made which are yet to be recognized and put into effect, will assure you of proper recognition by future historians. Not the least of my satisfactions has been your appointment as Secretary of Agriculture after many years of meritorious service with the Department. As you close seventeen years of diligent effort on behalf of the farmers of America, I offer you my thanks for what you have done for them and for me. For the future, I wish every good thing for you. I know you will always be in the forefront of those who are working for the welfare of people in every walk of life. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Brannan served as Secretary of Agricul- ture from June 2, 1948, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 8, was released with the President's reply. 386 Letter Accepting Resignation of Maurice J. Tobin as Secretary of Labor. January 16, 1953 [ Released January 16, 1953. Dated January 15, 1953 ] Dear Maurice: I want to thank you both officially and personally for the good work you have done as a member of my Cabinet, as I accept your resignation effective at the end of my term of office, January 20, 1953. As Secretary of Labor, you have been in the forefront of the successful effort to bring full employment to the workers of this country. You have been instrumental in mobilizing the Nation's manpower for the defense of the free world. I am proud of your courageous struggle to obtain decent legislation for the rights of labor to organize and bargain collectively. During your service, American workers have achieved the highest standard of living in history. You have contributed in great degree to this accomplishment not only by fighting for progressive labor legislation, but also by your farsighted administration of labor laws. Your knowledge of government and politics and your sympathy with the prob- lems of working people have enabled you to make a great contribution to the Depart- ment of Labor, the Government and the entire country. I appreciated the commendation in your letter and the blessings you ask for me, particularly. You have my best wishes for the future. Sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman note: Mr. Tobin served as Secretary of Labor from August 13, 1948, to January 20, 1953. His letter of resignation, dated January 12, was released with the President's reply. 1206 Harry S. Truman, 7953 Jan. 17 [387] 387 Memorandum Concerning the Organization of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation, Inc. January 17, 1953 [ Released January 17, 1953. Dated January 16, 1953 ] Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of General Services The Board of Visitors of the Virginia Military Institute has arranged for the or- ganization of the George C. Marshall Re- search Foundation, Inc., as a non-profit Virginia corporation. The purpose of the Foundation will be to collect and receive papers and records relating to the life and public service of General Marshall, together with other historical objects and documents, and to provide a suitable building to house them at V.M.I. To assist in effectuating this, the General Assembly of Virginia has enacted legislation authorizing V.M.I, to deed land to the Foundation as a site for the building to be known as the George C. Mar- shall Research Center. This building will be a library and museum and will be open to the public. The Foundation project is to be financed by funds raised from private sources. The establishment of the Foundation has been a matter of great interest to me, and I have consulted with V.M.I, officials about it over a period of more than a year. In con- nection with these conferences, I agreed that the United States Government would in so far as practicable make available to the Foundation documentary material relating to the activities of General Marshall as a sol- dier, as Secretary of State, and as Secretary of Defense. A committee composed of rep- resentatives of the White House, the Depart- ments of State and Defense and the National Archives, has given considerable study to the procedures by which the Government can assist the Foundation in obtaining the docu- mentary material that it will want. I am now advised that V.M.I, officials are ready to complete the actual incorporation of the Foundation, and that they are also prepared to employ the necessary staff to begin the handling and processing of docu- mentary material relating to the career of General Marshall. The V.M.I, library is equipped to receive and maintain such mate- rial on a temporary basis pending construc- tion of the Research Center building. Subject to any applicable provisions of law, I therefore direct the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the National Archives to cooperate with V.M.I, and the Foundation in procuring this docu- mentary material, and to provide them with access to such records as they wish which can properly be made available to public inspection. Under the supervision of the Archivist of the United States, I am hopeful that repro- ductions of official records relating to the career of General Marshall can be provided the Foundation. Many of the pertinent Government rec- ords will remain classified or will be with- held from the public for a number of years. As rapidly as they can be made public, how- ever, I hope they will be made available to the Foundation. I am requesting each of you to bring this memorandum to the attention of your suc- cessors in office as a matter of urgency. I feel confident that they will wish to support the efforts that have been commenced to provide suitable recognition to one of the greatest Americans of our age. Harry S. Truman. 1207 [388] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents 388 Special Message to the Congress on the Nation's Land and Water Resources. January 19, 1953 To the Congress of the United States: As I leave the office of President, I should like to call to the attention of the Congress several recent actions designed to provide a better basis for the development of our water and related land resources. These resources are a foundation, upon which rest our national security, our ability to maintain a democratic society, and our leadership in the free world. All too fre- quently their significance has been obscured among the dramatic events which have characterized our time. Realizing the importance of properly planned water resource development, in 1950 I appointed a special commission to recom- mend a consistent and forward-looking na- tional policy for the conservation, develop- ment and use of our water and related land resources. This was the Water Resources Policy Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Morris L. Cooke. The Commission reported to me in 1951. Their report has been under careful and detailed study by the Executive Branch agen- cies since then. I now am transmitting formally the Commission's report to the Congress for its consideration in treating problems of resource development. I be- lieve that the report is of great value. The Commission's understanding of cooperative effort in the American system, its clarifica- tion of the complex problems of multiple- purpose planning, its detailed professional analysis of water management, and its recog- nition of the broad public interest make the report an important public document. The general studies of the Commission will shortly be supplemented by specific field studies of resource development in three major regions of the country. After Con- gress authorized the basic surveys in 1950, I established Federal interagency committees to study the New England-New York region and the Arkansas-White-Red Basins. Those committees were organized and they have been at work for two and a half years. They will report upon the multiple-purpose devel- opment of those regions next year. The committees have been directed to draw upon the experience and ideas of the people of the regions to the greatest extent possible. The committees also have been directed to present fully coordinated recommendations for all the purposes served by water and land development. The Governors of the affected States or their representatives are participat- ing in the committee work, and their views will be reflected in these reports. In 1952, 1 appointed a bi-partisan Missouri Basin Survey Commission to assemble the facts and report its judgments upon the proper procedure for further development in that vast territory. The report of this Com- mission will be available within a few weeks. The Commission, which is composed of Members of Congress and leading citizens of the Missouri Basin, has conducted inten- sive hearings throughout the Basin States. This Commission's report will be based on first-hand expressions by the people of the Basin of their views on the future develop- ment of this vital region in the heart of our country. Thus we shall soon have three important additional field checks for particular regions upon the desirable pattern of development for each area. These studies have been undertaken against a background of great accomplish- ment, and in accord with the Nation's well- established tradition of public interest in its water and land resources. I believe them to be in accord with our record of vigorous ac- tion to protect the public welfare in river basin development, a record which dates from the first years of this century. The first real impetus to sensible river basin development came as a part of the "conservation movement" which was led by 1208 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 19 [388] President Theodore Roosevelt. He and his advisers realized that the continuing misuse of our natural resources through unbridled private development would seriously endan- ger the Nation's welfare within a very few generations. His dynamic leadership brought the first real safeguards to assure that benefits from resource development would accrue to all the people, rather than just to special interests. At the same time, he sought to assure permanently productive forests, waters and lands. During the period prior to the first World War, the Congress also demonstrated a bi- partisan interest in publicly beneficial river basin development. Indeed its interest in waterway development and flood control in the nineteenth century marked the begin- nings of Federal water policy. The interest of both the Congress and the Executive Branch in comprehensive treat- ment of our river basins was reflected in the enactment of laws which established and provided for the administration of the na- tional forests — one main purpose of which was to protect important watersheds which are sources for many streams. It was shown in the enactment of the Reclamation Act of 1902 to provide Federal aid for the develop- ment of irrigation on the arid lands of the West. The interest continued, as indicated by passage of the Federal Water Power Act in 1920. That Act required selection of elec- tric power projects or plans which developed and used water resources most efficiently. The interest was further illustrated in the 1927 authorization of the Corps of Engineers "308" reports, which specifically provided for comprehensive planning. Although the dynamic influence of Theo- dore Roosevelt was important in the conser- vation movement, the legislation enacted to conserve and to develop our water and land resources for the most part was broadly sup- ported by both parties. The steps taken were in recognition of the overriding public interest in sound resource management. The experience of this early period of pub- lic action showed that constant vigilance and competent professional guidance are es- sential to prevent irreparable losses. In spite of earlier efforts, whole sections of our national resource foundation were crumbling as recently as twenty years ago. We had not yet fully awakened to some of the dangers to national interest which lay in short-sighted private actions. Our lands were disappear- ing in gale and flood; our streams still were destructive giants unchained. During the two eventful decades which have followed since 1933, the Nation has undergone some deeply moving experiences, like the appearance of the Great Plains "dust- bowl" which directly or indirectly affected millions of people. In part under the stimulus of catastrophe, but with the ad- vantage of wise counsel during those years, we have changed greatly our attitudes to- ward using our lands and waters. We have learned that the mark of a well- managed land lies in the care a Nation gives to its rivers. We have learned that rivers truly can be our servants, harnessed to pro- vide vast additions to our wealth. And as we have learned we have been working to restore the crumbling parts of our resource foundation in a manner which has captured the imagination of the world. During these years I believe that we demonstrated for all time the efficiency and the humanity of comprehensively planned, multi-purpose river basin development. Compare the Tennessee Valley of 1933, which lacked even hope, with the vigorous region TV A in 1953 is assisting the people to build further. There you now will find several million people who are working ag- gressively to make the best use of their re- sources. A unified management of their watershed has helped them to create new opportunities. Or compare the great dams and thousands of acres of fertile green fields which are beginning to grace eastern Washington State, with the sagebrush and scabland of a few years ago. Look at the great works of the Central Valley, or of the Colorado, which literally move rivers from one basin to an- 1209 [388] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents other. Look at the great developments which are getting under way on the Missouri and in the Southwest. No wonder professional visitors from all over the world come to see our works, and to study our ideas. The stream of several thousand professional visitors who come every year to study the Department of In- terior's, TVA's, the Department of Agricul- ture's, and the Corps of Engineers' work is not a matter of chance. Only something solid and stimulating could be so lasting an attraction. During those twenty years, we have learned the true place of electric power generating facilities in our national life. They are vital to the Nation — physically, economically, socially. We now know they are so vital that never again can we trust to haphazard planning for their construction. We know that electricity can be produced and sold cheaply; and that when it is so produced, the market for it is of hitherto undreamed size. We know that large reserves of generating capacity are vital to economic health and to national security. We know that the public construction of main transmission lines from generators to wholesale distribution points unlocks this generating capacity for the public at large, and eliminates the danger of monopoly. We know these things because we had the foresight to commence multiple-purpose river development. TVA proved a lot of these things to us, and our works in other parts of the country have confirmed and extended that proof. I need hardly remind you that without the electricity of the TVA and Bonneville sys- tems, which resulted from Federal multiple- purpose development, we should not have had enough aluminum for planes, and we should not have had the timely atomic energy program of the last World War. In fact those two public power systems are still the energy life-lines for that greatest develop- ment of our time. We have learned much more. We now know that fertilizer can be produced and sold more cheaply than it was in the past. That can be done through having low-cost electric power in the right place, as for the huge phosphate deposits of the Pacific North- west. Or it can come through new proc- esses, as have been developed by TVA. Both means help us to produce more food and clothing. And the fertilizer has been made to help the upstream farmer keep his soil on his farm. That is where the soil belongs, and not in the flooded basements and on the warehouse floors of valley cities. We have learned that private citizens — farmers, ranchers, forest owners — in their own interest as well as that of the Nation, should plan the use of the resources they control so that those resources will be more fruitful as the years go by. All across our country individuals and private companies have demonstrated the value and the practi- cality of effective conservation in the daily management of their own enterprises. We have learned that the farmer can have electricity in his dairy barn and his wife can electrify her kitchen — at rates which he can afford. We have learned that small towns can compete with cities for the location of in- dustry and factory jobs without having the disadvantage of high electricity rates, and without the disadvantage of high transpor- tation rates for their materials and goods. Frequently dams which produce electricity also make it possible for vessels to move at low cost on a river. We have learned that the advantages of flood control can be extended on a large scale through multiple-purpose reservoirs and watershed improvements, aiding town and farm alike. All these now nationally acknowledged benefits of comprehensive river basin devel- opment were little but the vision of a few foresighted men twenty years ago. But they were visions which had existed for many years before we were able to act upon them. I hope that the demonstration we now have before us will never be forgotten, 1210 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 19 [388] nor its significance lost sight of. I am happy to report that we have made impressive additions to our resource foun- dation during my Administration. We have continued on the programs which were so well started in previous years. Since 1945, we have added about 2,700,000 irrigated acres to our farm lands. By the middle of 1953, works constructed by the Federal Government will be supplying irri- gation water to 135,000 farm units in the West. Several million additional acres would be irrigated under projects which have been authorized by the Congress but not yet constructed. Since 1945, also, we have made substantial progress toward the protection of our many valleys from disastrous floods. We have provided additional flood control on the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Columbia, in New England, the Southwest and California, and in the mid-Adantic States. We have made encouraging progress on the vast works for control of the giant Missouri, probably our most important remaining problem in river development. Between 1945 and 1953, about three million acres of valley land were given flood protection. Works now under way will provide protection to an additional 7,600,000 acres. Three hundred and fifty communities and 2,700,000 people are lo- cated in the areas which will be protected. In this period, we have continued to im- prove our navigable waterways. We now have 28,600 miles of them, 11,100 miles to a depth of nine feet or more. They are im- portant parts of the Nation's transportation system, and their use has increased greatly in these years. We have continued our soil conservation program. In these last eight years 1,296 new Soil Conservation Districts were formed. This addition nearly doubled the number of such districts in the country. Our additions to the country's means of producing and distributing electric energy have also been great in this period. During these eight years, the Federal Government alone has constructed five million kilowatts of generating capacity. This has increased the size of our public power systems by fifty percent. Further ultimate capacity of 10.6 million kilowatts will be added when we complete projects now in construction. Since 1945, we have constructed 12,200 miles of main transmission lines. They as- sure widespread benefits to the people from public power. Through the direct efforts of the Rural Electrification Administration since 1945, we have brought electricity to one and one- half million farms which never before had it. More than eighty-eight percent of our farms now are electrified, as compared to forty-six percent in January 1945. Through the lines constructed by the Department of the Interior and the TVA we also have brought the benefits of low-rate public power to sixty-five additional municipalities. I have not the slightest doubt that these works, by the example they gave as well as the electricity they delivered, were an im- portant reason for the small change in our rates for electric service throughout the Na- tion during this period when many prices rose sharply. Since 1945, during a period when private utilities have experienced un- precedented prosperity, national average residential and commercial electric rates actually have decreased, and industrial rates have increased less than ten percent. Com- pare that to the general rate increase of al- most eighty percent authorized in the same period for rail freight rates. Without multi- ple-purpose river basin development, I be- lieve that few of these accomplishments would have been possible. I have been privileged to see during this Administration the beginning or completion by our Federal Government of great dams, gigantic irrigation enterprises, huge gen- erating stations, and other monuments which will stand as symbols of the truths about water and land developments we have now accepted as a Nation. I might speak of the engineering accom- plishments alone: The Corps of Engineers' McNary Dam on the Columbia, the Bureau I2II [388] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents of Reclamation's Grand Coulee irrigation diversion in Washington, and its Hungry Horse Dam in Montana, the Corps' Ft. Randall Dam on the Missouri; and TVA's Shawnee steam plant, to be the largest in the world. These are among the great engi- neering accomplishments of all time. Yet it seems more important to me that all these, and other projects too, are symbols of the things we have learned about efficient, orderly, organized development of river basins. We built the Bureau of Reclamation's great new Hungry Horse Dam in Montana not as an isolated structure, but as a part of the Columbia Basin system. Its value lies much more in the water it stores for use in a score of places down the long Columbia sys- tem than in its own sizeable electricity production. We are building TVA's Shawnee plant where it is because we want to make the best possible use of the whole TVA electrical sys- tem for the development of atomic energy in the interest of our national defense. This is what we must do for every one of these great works that we plan or build in the future. If we are to use our money and our effort wisely, they must all be planned and built with the full needs of the region and the Nation in mind. Each new struc- ture must be recognized as part of a plant which comprises a whole system of river development. In planning for each func- tion, we must be mindful of its relation to all other purposes. And we especially must make sure that we safeguard the use of these resources for the benefit of all the people. Where the public monies are invested, the resulting gains must accrue to the public, and not be diverted to the undue benefit of any private group. As we consider what the Nation has done, and what we now know, we must admit that we still have much to do. But a great deal will depend on the way we do it. We now are at a stage where we can capitalize on the extensive groundwork which has been laid for unified planning and management and multiple-purpose development of our re- gional water and land resources. There are many reasons why we should take steps as soon as * possible to improve further our resource development policy and administrative machinery, and why we must modernize Federal Government tech- niques which determine the speed, justice and efficiency we can muster for this work. The national investment in resource de- velopment from all sources has taken a sharp upward turn since the end of the sec- ond World War. The Federal Government alone is now spending about a billion dollars a year to help develop our river basins through irrigation, power, flood prevention, navigation, watershed treatment and in other important ways. The Congress has author- ized over ten billion dollars of projects for undertaking in the future. However, in the face of this program, Federal organization for carrying out water resources respon- sibilities remains diffuse, and there is no uniform Congressionally approved Federal water resources policy to govern large parts of this program. More and more people are beginning to realize the importance of immediate changes to assure wise investment. There is an en- couraging tide of rising interest in this hitherto specialized technical field by farm- ers, businessmen, workmen, civic organiza- tions, and others. Increasingly large vol- umes of publicity are being given to definite proposals for changed policy and organiza- tion; some of these have real merit, and some, if adopted, would be very harmful. Finally, some of our regions are in need of immediate help. I cannot think of the wasting resources of the Rio Grande Basin, the Arkansas Basin, the Red River, or New England without considering what a unified multiple-purpose program might do for each of them, and in helping them, what it might do for the Nation. These are not jobs for isolated, unrelated single-project develop- ment. They demand comprehensive plans for water and land alike. We cannot escape 1212 Harry S. Truman, 1953 Jan. 19 [388] the obvious relation of such improvements to our national security. For these reasons I commend to the Con- gress for its serious attention several lines of action. First, we should organize more efficient means of regional river basin planning and managment in those parts of our country which need such improvement. The type of organization need not be the same for all regions. The breadth of our land and the number of rivers in it inevitably have given rise to many differing needs. A fixed pattern may not be the sole answer to the problems of all these rivers. But whatever the outward form, the ob- jectives should be the same. The organiza- tions we decide upon should be strong enough to uphold the peoples' interest in their resources. They should be strong enough to be efficient. They should be strong enough to see that unified multiple- purpose development is planned for, and works operated harmoniously in each basin- wide comprehensive system. Their respon- sibilities should embrace related land as well as water programs. The Water Resources Policy Commission recommended in favor of decentralized but unified or coordinated administration for those resource programs. The need for bet- ter coordinated basin administration also was recognized by the Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch, which reported earlier to me and to the Congress. Second, we should increase our efforts to see that every affected State, and every af- fected community in a region is given opportunity to share in the responsibility for basin development. I think it is a good rule that where States and communities assume a greater share in administrative or planning responsibility, they should also assume greater financial responsibility. We hear more and more of management and planning by the States from the regions where work now is being done, or is about to be undertaken. But we have found, I regret to say, that this growing demand for local administrative responsibility, with few exceptions, is not matched by an equal will- ingness to relieve the Federal Government of financial responsibility for a proportionate share of the required investment. The as- sumption of greater State and community financial responsibility is one of the ways we can avoid irresponsible special pressure for undesirable projects. We can view with favor the increasing local awareness of the necessity of planned, cooperative improvement of our streams, but we also must foster an understanding of the huge size of the job. There is much more to it than Federal Government funds are likely to accomplish in a reasonable time. We must also see that improved Federal organization accompanies increased local and State participation. States and com- munities cannot cooperate effectively with the agencies of the Federal Government where sharp differences of opinion exist and where machinery for resolving those dif- ferences is cumbersome or absent. Third, we should strengthen and simplify our Federal procedures for selection among the great volume of project proposals which come to the Executive offices and the Con- gress every year. It has been estimated that full development of our water and land resources over the years may require the investment of as much as a hundred billion dollars by private citi- zens and their Government. Not far in the future the mold will be formed which will determine the pattern of works for most of our important regions. Whether or not the investment is to be sound or unsound, for all the people or for a fortunate few, will be decided by what the Federal Govern- ment does within a few years. Thus far we haven't even been able to compare projects on the same basis. There are a number of Federal resource-develop- ment laws, and they establish differing pro- cedures and differing standards. We have had to judge irrigation proposals by one standard, flood control by another, pollu- 55-672—66- -80 1213 [388] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents tion control by a third, and so on. In some cases, we haven't even been able to get the facts as to whether or not benefits will be greater than costs, even though the propo- nents always assure us of the great value of their particular proposal. You can't make rapid progress without effective means for selecting projects wisely. I am pleased to report that we have found it possible to move forward by Executive ac- tion toward better project selection. With my approval, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget recently has issued a Budget Circular which establishes standards to be used by the Executive office in reviewing all reports on water projects and programs. I believe this Circular is a significant step toward improved evaluation and cost-alloca- tion procedure. But it is only a first step. Many of the problems we encounter result from statutes which can be corrected only by Congressional action. Furthermore, I suggested in the 1954 Budget Message that Congress might wish to examine its own intricate procedure for reviewing resource proposals. In each House of the Congress, there are several committees and sub-committees which con- sider different programs and projects, even though many projects are on the same rivers and watersheds. The Congress might find that revision of this structure would have helpful effects upon the now complicated operation of the Executive resource-develop- ment agencies. Fourth, we must find a better answer to the question: "Who pays and how much?" Our present policy was developed piece-meal over more than a century. During most of this period equitable sharing of costs took second place to the need for development. For example, consider our flood control policy. When its main outlines were devel- oped in the 1930's, material, resources and the labor of our citizens were begging to be put to work. Now we face the opposite situation. There' are many urgent and com- petitive uses for materials and manpower. Our reimbursement policy for all water development should be reoriented to help us meet these problems. The cost of resource projects should be paid more by those who benefit direcdy from them. Such a change can have a double effect. It would remove some of the burden for payment from the taxpayer-at-large, and it would make the proposers of projects more careful about in- vestigating the soundness of their ideas. And we should clarify our repayment proce- dures so that every citizen can learn exactly where his tax dollar has gone, and what chance his Government has of getting it back. Fifth, we should see that our development procedure is so designed that it can provide the most in farms, and jobs, and opportunity for business enterprise for every dollar spent. With these objectives in mind, we should modernize our laws for promoting additions to cultivable land, and adapt the revision to the needs of the forty-eight States. We should retain the requirements of acreage limitation but we should modernize them, in order to make them a true instrument for encouraging the settlement of family farms. We should further see that balanced indus- trial employment opportunities and private business opportunities are available, and that Federal resource works are used to provide them wherever and whenever possible and necessary. Toward these ends the Bureau of the Budget has been preparing legislative pro- posals for desirable changes in policy and organization. The results of this work will be available to the new Administration. To the people of the Nation through their representatives in Congress I commend certain objectives toward which the Govern- ment should continue to move in our na- tional programs of water and land develop- ment. We should help make available jobs and business opportunities in manufacturing, in- dustry, and trade in the different regions of the country — as they are needed. The Gov- ernment should help supply the basic needs of private enterprise, including electric 1214 Harry S. Truman, ig^ Jan. 19 [388] power, water transportation, water supply, and flood-protected industrial sites to make the best use of the resources of each region. It should do this in ways which will encour- age the development of the skills and capac- ities of the people who are there or who may move there. In the regions where the Federal Gov- ernment has become an important utility, like the Tennessee Valley, or the Pacific Northwest, the Government should continue to supply new generating plants in adequate number. We must not permit brown-outs, or the turning away of new industry well-suited to these areas. In developing new generating capacity, and in disposing of public power, we should endeavor to make possible electricity rates which permit all homes to have modern comforts, and which allow farm tasks to be lightened by modern machines. The Government should continue to help make available new family farms at reason- able prices and on reasonable terms. The Government should continue to im- prove its practice of sustained yield manage- ment of public lands and forests, and to strongly promote the similar management of private property. The Government should continue to en- courage more local and State responsibility. This does not mean promising the States or communities something for nothing — far from it. Administration by the States of Federally provided dollars alone is not real responsibility. Indeed, full reliance on the Federal Treasury is in anything but the best interest of the community, the State, and the Nation. This job of getting our land and water developed, I repeat, is so big that we must enlist the participation of all agencies — Fed- eral, State, community, private enterprise. The results can be timely and economical only if States and communities invest their dollars, as well as the Federal taxpayer. I report finally, then, that we now have well charted the obstructions to efficient na- tional water resource development of wide- spread benefit. In doing this we have found much that is good, and I would hold fast to it. But I also believe that a more certain route to these benefits can be planned. When that is done, the Nation can build even more surely and more rapidly than before. Harry S. Truman note: For the President's letter to Morris Cooke in- forming him of the proposed establishment of the President's Water Resources Policy Commission and asking him to serve as Chairman, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 1. For the President's letter to department and agency heads following publication of the final volume of the Commission's report, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 55. For the President's letter concerning the establish- ment of an Interagency Committee To Study the Resources and Development of New England and New York, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 265. The Committee's report is entitled "The Resources of the New England-New York Region" (1955, 46 vols.). For the White House statement announcing the establishment of the Arkansas-White-Red River Basins Interagency Committee, see 1950 volume, this series, Item 164. The Committee's report is entitled "A Report on the Conservation and Devel- opment of Water and Land Resources, Prepared by Federal and State Agencies Under Authorization of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1950" (1955, 23 vols.). For the President's statement upon signing an Executive order establishing the Missouri Basin Survey Commission, see Item 3, this volume. The Commission's report is entitled "Missouri: Land and Water" (Government Printing Office, 1953, 295 pp.). 1215 [389] Jan. 19 Public Papers of the Presidents 389 Letter to the President-Elect Transmitting Report of the President's Committee on Government Contract Compliance. January 19, 1953 Dear General Eisenhower: I am glad to transmit to you the report of the President's Committee on Government Contract Compliance, which was handed to me on January sixteenth. At my request this Committee investigated fully the pro- cedures now being used to obtain compliance with the non-discrimination clause required in nearly all Government procurement con- tracts. The Committee report submits a total of twenty-two recommendations for improving compliance. Some of them re- quire legislative action; others can be ac- complished by the Executive Branch but would require the approval of the Chief Executive. I feel the Committee has done a thorough job of investigation and I wish to call your attention to these suggestions, some of which, I am sure, would be helpful. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Honorable D wight D. Eisenhower, The Statler Hotel, Washington, D.C.] note: The Committee's report, dated January 16, 1953, is entitled "Equal Economic Opportunity" (Government Printing Office, 1953, n 1 pp.)- For the President's statement upon establishing the Committee on Government Contract Compli- ance, see 1 95 1 volume, this series, Item 299. See also Item 7 [1, 6] 390 Letter to the President, American Federation of Government Employees, on the 70th Anniversary of the Merit System. January 20, 1953 [Released January 20, 1953. Dated January 19, 1953] Dear Mr. Campbell: I am happy to join with you in the recog- nition of the 70th Anniversary of the estab- lishment of the Federal Civil Service merit system. I have great faith and confidence in our civil servants. During the almost eight years of my Administration I have found in them a loyal and reliable force, always ready to do the public's work with impartiality and diligence. The people of the United States have a very great asset in this force. It is my fervent hope as I leave the Office of the Presi- dency that recent reckless attacks which can destroy that great asset will subside and that we will continue to go forward in creating a skilled corps of men and women with a pub- lic point of view who are willing to devote their careers to the people's business. Very sincerely yours, Harry S. Truman [Mr. James A. Campbell, President, American Fed- eration of Government Employees, 900 F Street NW., Washington 4, D.C.] note: The release making public the text of this letter bears the following notation: "The President considers this to be his last official act." I2l6 Appendix A — White House Press Releases note: Includes releases covering matters with which the President was closely concerned, except an- nouncements of Presidential personnel appointments and approvals of legislation with which there was no accompanying statement. Releases relating to Proclamations and Executive orders have not been included. These documents are separately listed in Appendix B. For list of Press and Radio Conferences, see sub- ject index under "News conferences." January i Statement by the President on reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue 3 Statement by the President concerning the Com- mission on the Health Needs of the Nation 3 Statement by the President upon signing Execu- tive order establishing the Missouri Basin Survey Commission 5 Remarks of welcome to Prime Minister Churchill at the Washington National Airport 6 4th quarterly report to the President by the Director of Defense Mobilization, entitled "The Battle for Production" 7 Letter accepting resignation of W. Stuart Syming- ton, Administrator, Reconstruction Finance Corporation 7 Letter to the Chairman, Tariff Commission, con- cerning imports of hatters' fur 9 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union 9 Joint statement following discussions with Prime Minister Churchill io White House announcement of appointment of members of Committee on Government Con- tract Compliance io Special message to the Senate transmitting Treaty of Peace with Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines, Security Treaty with Aus- tralia and New Zealand, and Security Treaty with Japan io Special message to the Senate transmitting pro- tocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of Greece and Turkey 1 2 Statement by the President on civil defense 12 White House statement on the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security of the National Security Council 14 Message to the Congress transmitting first report on inclusion of escape clauses in trade agree- ments January 14 Special message to the Congress transmitting Re- organization Plan 1 of 1952: Bureau of Inter- nal Revenue 14 Special message to the Congress on synthetic rubber 14 White House announcement of nomination of William H. Draper, Jr., as U.S. Special Repre- sentative in Europe for Mutual Security 14 Letter accepting resignation of Charles M. Spof- ford, Deputy Representative to the North Atlantic Council 15 Message to the Congress transmitting the first annual report of the National Science Founda- tion 15 Letter to W. Stuart Symington, Administrator, Reconstruction Finance Corporation, on his re- maining in office pending confirmation of suc- cessor 15 White House statement on meeting of the Presi- dent's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation 16 Statement by the President on the 69th anniver- sary of the civil service system 16 Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report 17 Letter accepting resignation of Richard M. Bis- sell, Jr., Deputy Director for Mutual Security 18 Joint statement following discussions with Prime Minister Churchill concerning the Atlantic Com- mand 18 White House announcement of agreements with the United Kingdom for mutual assistance with respect to scarce materials 21 Letter accepting resignation of Stanton GrifEs as Ambassador to Spain 21 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1953 22 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House urging action on mine safety legislation 1217 Appendix A January 22 Letter accepting resignation of Edward L. Nor- ton, member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 23 Letter to Eric Johnston requesting him to serve as chairman of the International Development Advisory Board 23 Letter accepting resignation of James E. Webb as Under Secretary of State 23 Letter accepting resignation of Edward W. Bar- rett as Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs 26 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the labor disputes in the aluminum industry 26 Emergency board report on dispute between railroad transportation systems operated by Sec- retary of Army and certain of their employees 28 Special message to the Congress urging action on the St. Lawrence Seaway 29 Remarks upon presenting Medals of Honor to M. Sgt. Hubert L. Lee and Sgt. Joseph C. Rodriguez, USA 30 Letter to Adm. Lynde D. McCormick designat- ing him Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic 31 White House announcement of members of Committee on Government Contract Compliance February 4 Letter accepting resignation of Michael V. DiSalle as Director of Price Stabilization 5 Letter to committee chairmen on determining to increase defense assistance to France, Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia 5 Letter to the secretary of state of New Hamp- shire concerning the presidential preference primary 5 Remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars dinner 6 Statement by the President on the death of King George VI 7 Letter accepting resignation of Adm. Alan G. Kirk as Ambassador to the U.S.S.R. 8 White House statement on the President's new railroad communications car 9 Statement by the President upon appoint- ing the members of the Missouri Basin Sur- vey Commission February 11 Special message to the Congress urging exten- sion and strengthening of the Defense Production Act 13 Remarks at dinner honoring Michael V. DiSalle 13 Fourth semiannual report on the Mutual De- fense Assistance Program for the period April 1, 1951-October 9, 1 95 1 14 Statement by the President following conference with Newbold Morris, Special Assistant to the Attorney General 14 Release for direct quotation of portions of the President's news conference of February 14, 1952 14 Special message to the Congress requesting that the Special Assistant to the Attorney General be given the power of subpoena 14 Special message to the Congress reporting on the labor disputes in the nonferrous metals industry 14 White House announcement of request for sup- plemental appropriations, 1952 and prior fiscal years 14 Emergency board report on dispute between the Akron and Barberton Belt Railroad Co. and certain of their employees 18 White House announcement of request for sup- plemental appropriations, fiscal year 1952 18 White House announcement of request for sup- plemental appropriations, fiscal year 1953 18 Emergency board report on dispute between the Pan-American World Airways Inc., and certain of its employees 19 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House transmitting draft of an Emergency Powers Continuation Act 20 Statement by the President commending the "Crusade for Christian Citizenship" 20 Letter to James H. Doolittle upon establishing the President's Airport Commission 20 Memorandum concerning the President's Air- port Commission 20 Remarks to a group of Methodist ministers from Illinois 20 Remarks to the winners of the fifth annual Voice of Democracy contest 21 Remarks at a Masonic breakfast 21 Letter accepting resignation of Wayne Coy as Chairman, Federal Communications Commission 1218 Appendix A February 21 Remarks to group from the Navajo Tribal Council 25 Statement by the President on the fourth anni- versary of Communist control in Czechoslovakia 27 Remarks welcoming Secretaries Acheson and Snyder on their return from the NATO con- ference in Lisbon 28 Remarks recorded for broadcast on the occasion of the opening of the Red Cross campaign 29 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on the United States contribution to the U.N. Children's Emergency Fund 29 Remarks to the winners of the nth annual sci- ence talent search March 4 Letter to the chairman, Senate Committee on Ex- penditures in the Executive Departments, urging action on reorganization of the Bureau of Inter- nal Revenue 4 Address broadcast from the Voice of America floating radio transmitter Courier 5 Special message to the Congress transmitting International Labor Organization recommenda- tion on vocational training of adults 6 Special message to the Congress on the Mutual Security Program 6 Remarks to members of a Catholic University dramatic group leaving for Korea 6 Radio and television address to the American people on the Mutual Security Program 6 Letter to the Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board, on the labor dispute in the petroleum in- dustry 7 Letter to the President of the Senate urging ac- tion on reorganization of the Bureau of Internal Revenue 7 Memorandum directing agency heads to decline to comply with a request for information by the chairman, Special Subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary 7 Message to the Congress transmitting first report on the Mutual Security Program 13 Message to the convention of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association on Federal power policy 15 Address in New York City at the convention of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association March 19 White House announcement concerning the restoration of the White House grounds 24 Letter accepting the resignation of John Foster Dulles as consultant to the Secretary of State 24 Special message to the Congress on aid for refugees and displaced persons 24 Letter to committee chairmen concerning a pro- gram in aid of fugitives from communism 27 Letter to committee chairmen enumerating con- tinuing powers, functions, and responsibilities of the Director for Mutual Security 28 Special message to the Congress on absentee vot- ing by members of the Armed Forces 29 Address at the Jefferson -Jackson Day dinner 30 Letter accepting resignation of Charles E. Wilson as Director of Defense Mobilization 30 Remarks at a reception by the Democratic Na- tional Committee 31 Statement by the President on the 10th anniver- sary of the Institute of Inter-American Affairs April 1 Fifth quarterly report to the President by the Director of Defense Mobilization entitled "Strength for the Long Run" 2 Remarks of welcome to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands at the Washington National Airport 2 Toasts of the President and Queen Juliana 3 Letter to Secretary Acheson on requests for information on the administration of the loyalty- security program 4 Remarks at ceremony commemorating the third anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty 4 Remarks on accepting a carillon presented to the people of the United States by the people of the Netherlands 7 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House urging prompt action on the Emergency Powers Continuation Act 8 Veto of bill relating to the Greenfields division of the Sun River irrigation project, Montana 8 Address before the National Conference on In- ternational Economic and Social Development 8 Radio and television address to the American people on the need for Government operation of the steel mills 1219 Appendix A April 9 Special message to the Congress reporting on the situation in the steel industry 9 Letter accepting resignation of J. Russell Young as a member, Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia 10 Special message to the Congress summarizing the new reorganization plans io Special message to the Congress transmitting Reorganization Plan 2 of 1952 10 Special message to the Congress transmitting Reorganization Plan 3 of 1952 10 Special message to the Congress transmitting Reorganization Plan 4 of 1952 10 Letter accepting resignation of Archibald S. Alexander as Under Secretary of the Army 11 Statement by the President on the 500th anni- versary of the birth of Leonardo da Vinci 11 Exchange of letters between General Eisen- hower and Secretary of Defense Lovett concern- ing General Eisenhower's request for release from assignment as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers Europe 1 1 Remarks at the presentation of the Congressional Medal of Honor to 1st Lt. Lloyd Burke, USA, Cpl. Rodolfo Hernandez, USA, and T. Sgt. Harold E. Wilson, USMC 12 Memorandum requesting agency heads to co- operate in an inquiry by a subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary 14 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on high- way safety 14 Remarks to a group of displaced persons 14 White House release concerning a schedule for accredited photographers to photograph the White House interior rooms 14 Remarks on receiving members of the Council of the Organization of American States 15 Statement by the President upon signing the Treaty of Peace with Japan and related security pacts 16 Letter to the Secretary of Defense on voting by servicemen 16 Remarks in Omaha on the floods in the upper Missouri and Mississippi Valleys 17 White House release of a statement made by the President during his news conference April 18 Remarks of the French Ambassador upon pre- senting a gift for the White House 18 Remarks upon receiving a gift for the White House presented by the French Ambassador 18 Remarks to members of the Associated Church Press 18 Address at the dedication of the new AMVETS headquarters in Washington 19 Letter to committee chairmen on the St. Law- rence seaway and power project 21 Letter to the President of the Senate concern- ing Government operation of the Nation's steel mills 22 Special message to the Congress transmitting the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 23 Letter to congressional committee chairmen on the continuation of aid to the Netherlands 23 White House release on the findings of the National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy concerning the steel situation 24 Message to the Congress transmitting the first annual report of the Federal Civil Defense Ad- ministration 25 Letter to Senator Maybank on vacation leave privileges of Federal employees 25 Letter to Senator McKellar on the need for re- storing funds for flood control 27 Letter to C. S. Jones in response to questions on the steel situation 28 Statement by the President on the termination of the state of war with Japan 28 Letter accepting resignation of Maxwell M. Hamilton as Representative of the United States on the Far Eastern Commission 28 Statement by the President and message upon appointing Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway Supreme Allied Commander, Europe 28 Statement by the President upon appointing Gen. Mark W. Clark to succeed General Ridgway May 1 Special message to the Congress transmitting Re- organization Plan 5 of 1952 2 Telegrams to industry leaders and to the union president calling a meeting on the steel strike 2 Address at the 70th anniversary meeting of the National Civil Service League I220 Appendix A May 3 Remarks at a meeting with steel industry and labor leaders 5 Special message to the Congress transmitting pro- posed legislation on a national system of flood disaster insurance 6 Remarks at the 21st annual banquet of the Na- tional Housing Conference 7 Statement by the President on General Ridgway's Korean armistice proposal 7 Letter accepting resignation of Manly Fleisch- mann as Administrator, Defense Production Ad- ministration 7 Letter to Henry H. Fowler on his assumption of the post of Administrator of the Defense Produc- tion Administration 8 Statement made by the President at his press conference giving his reflections on life in the Presidency 12 Letter to congressional committee chairmen urg- ing action on bills to encourage voting by service- men 14 Remarks at a dinner for the Members of Congress given by the Civil Air Patrol 15 Address at the sixth annual honor awards pro- gram of the Department of Agriculture 16 White House statement regarding the annual report of the Board of Visitors to the United States Naval Academy 1 6 Remarks at the Armed Forces dinner 17 Address at the national convention banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action 19 Statement by the Assistant to the President, the recommended settlement of the railroad strike 20 Remarks at a luncheon in the cadet dining hall at West Point 20 Address at the sesquicentennial convocation of the United States Military Academy 20 Citation accompanying Distinguished Service Medal awarded to General Ridgway 21 Veto of bill for the relief of Susie Lee Spencer (Congressional Record, vol. 98, p. 5632) 21 Remarks to the winner of the Teacher of the Year Award 21 Remarks at the dedication of a memorial plaque honoring Pvt. Leslie Coffelt May 21 Statement by the Assistant to the President an- nouncing the settlement of the railroad strike 21 Remarks to members of the National Advisory Committee of the Veterans Administration Vol- untary Services 23 Message to the Congress transmitting 68th an- nual report of the U.S. Civil Service Commission 23 Special message to the Congress upon signing bills relating to veterans' benefits 23 Statement by the President: Memorial Day 23 Memorandum on proposed bills dealing with treaties and executive agreements 23 Letter to the Secretary of the Army directing him to terminate control of the railroads 24 Remarks in Annapolis at a luncheon in the midshipmen's mess hall 26 Address before the Electric Consumers Conference 26 Address at a dinner of the Jewish National Fund 28 Remarks to members of the American Action Committee Against Mass Deportations in Romania 29 Veto of bill concerning title to offshore lands 29 Letter to Senator Maybank on the atomic energy program 29 Letter to the Speaker transmitting supplemental appropriations requests for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Tennessee Valley Authority 29 Letter to the President of the Senate on proposed amendments to the Defense Production Act June 2 Address before the President's Conference on Industrial Safety 2 Special message to the Senate transmitting a convention on relations with Germany and re- lated documents 2 Citation accompanying Distinguished Service Medal awarded to General Eisenhower 4 White House announcement of supplemental appropriations request for the Department of Defense 4 Remarks upon receiving a plaque presented by the Capital Press Club 4 Remarks to Jimmy Carrick, winner of "The Kid of the Year" award 1221 Appendix A June 5 Letter to the Chairman, Air Coordinating Com- mittee, transmitting report of the Airport Commission 7 Remarks at a breakfast of the 35th Division Association, Springfield, Mo. 7 Address in Springfield at the 3 2d reunion of the 35th Division Association 9 Letter to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency on the steel strike 9 Statement by the President upon signing bill relating to the office of the Recorder of Deeds of the District of Columbia 10 Special message to the Congress on the steel strike 11 Memorandum transmitting an exchange of cor- respondence between the President and Senator Russell regarding the Communist prisoners in- terned on Koje Island 1 1 Letter to Senator Russell on the prison camps on Koje Island 11 Letter accepting resignation of Franklin D. Richards as Commissioner of the Federal Hous- ing Administration 11 Remarks to members of the Provisional Inter- governmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe 11 Remarks to members of the United States At- torneys Association 13 Letter to Mrs. Elizabeth Cochrane on the need for increasing social security benefits 13 Remarks to members of the International Society of Christian Endeavor 13 Commencement address at Howard University 14 Address in Groton, Conn., at the keel laying of the first atomic energy submarine 14 Remarks at a luncheon at the Officers Club, U.S. Submarine Base, New London, Conn. 16 White House announcement of appropriations requests for administrative expenses of defense production and economic stabilization activities 16 Remarks to members of "Task Force Smith" June 18 Remarks to members of the Eighth Annual In- stitute on the Preservation and Administration of Archives 19 Remarks to the delegates to the 22d National 4-H Club camp 20 Letter to the Attorney General on the sale of the SS United States 23 Letter to Senator Russell on the military con- struction bill 23 Letter in response to report of the President's Materials Policy Commission 23 Report and Digest (Vol. I) of the President's Materials Policy Commission 23 Special message to the Congress transmitting re- port of the Commission for the Commemoration of the 175th Anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence 24 Letter to congressional committee chairmen on the need for continuing aid to Italy 24 Remarks upon presenting the Young American Medal for Bravery and the Young American Medal for Service 25 Veto of bill to revise the Immigration and Na- tionality Act 25 Letter accepting resignation of H. Graham Mori- son as Assistant Attorney General 25 Letter accepting resignation of Harold I. Bayn- ton as Assistant Attorney General 25 Remarks to the Washington Student Citizenship Seminar 26 Remarks to the members of the National YMCA and Government Assembly 26 Statement by the President on the need for de- ferring the drafting of certain apprentices and farm laborers 26 Letter to the Director, Office of Defense Mobili- zation, approving a manpower policy for agri- cultural labor 26 Letter to the Director, Selective Service System, on deferment of farm workers 17 Letter to Clyde B. Aitchison, Interstate Commerce Commission, on the extension of his term of office 17 Remarks upon receiving a medal presented by students from William Chrisman High School, Independence, Mo. 27 Remarks to members of the Board of the Inter- national Federation of Business and Professional Women 30 Veto of bill relating to claims of the Cuban- American Sugar Company (Congressional Rec- ord, vol. 98, p. 8615) 1222 Appendix A June 30 Letter accepting resignation of Oliver S. Powell as a member of the Board of Governors of the Fed- eral Reserve System July 1 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House regarding the St. Lawrence seaway and power project 1 Statement by the President on the Defense Pro- duction Act Amendments 1 Statement by the President on the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission 1 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House transmitting report of the President's Materials Policy Commission 1 Rear platform remarks in Newport, Ark. 2 Address in Arkansas at the dedication of the Norfork and Bull Shoals dams 2 Remarks at an outdoor luncheon in Bull Shoals, Ark. 2 Rear platform remarks at Batesville, Ark. 2 Remarks at the airport, Newport, Ark. 3 Special message to the Senate withdrawing cer- tain obsolete treaties 3 Message to the Congress transmitting sixth annual report on U.S. participation in the United Nations 3 Statement by the President on the steel strike 3 Statement by the President on the United Nations 3 Statement by the President upon signing bill ap- proving the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 3 Sixth quarterly report to the President by the Director of Defense Mobilization entitled "The Shield Against Aggression" 4 Statement by the President upon signing bill pro- viding for water research and development 5 Letter to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House on appropriations for atomic energy 6 Statement by the President upon signing the In- dependent Offices Appropriation Act. 8 Letter accepting resignation of Philip B. Perlman as Solicitor General July 13 Letter to members of the Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security requesting a study of for- eign trade policies 14 Statement by the President upon signing the "fair- trade laws" bill 15 Statement by the President upon signing the Supplemental Appropriation Act 15 Letter accepting resignation of William D. Has- sett as Secretary to the President 16 Statement by the President upon signing an amendment to the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act 16 Statement by the President upon signing bill re- lating to payments to certain employees of the House of Representatives 17 Memorandum of disapproval of bill relating to employees of the Canal Zone Government and the Panama Canal Company 17 Statement by the President upon signing bills relating to the Delaware River Port Authority 18 Statement by the President upon signing bill re- lating to agricultural price supports 18 Statement by the President upon signing bill amending the Merchant Marine Act 18 Memorandum of disapproval of bill for the establishment of a Veterans Administration facil- ity at Fort Logan, Colo. 18 Statement by the President upon signing the So- cial Security Act Amendments 18 Letter accepting resignation of John J. McCloy as U.S. High Commissioner for Germany 19 Memorandum of disapproval of bill authorizing the Postmaster General to lease quarters for post office purposes 19 Special Message to the Congress: The President's Midyear Economic Report 21 Letter to committee chairmen on the Tariff Com- mission recommendation on imports of garlic 24 Statement by the President on the settlement of the steel strike 25 Letter to congressional committee chairmen on the need for continuing aid to Denmark 26 Address in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention 12 Statement by the President on the Ground Ob- server Corps' "Operation Sky watch" 28 Statement by the President on the death of Sen- ator Brien McMahon 1223 Appendix A July 30 White House announcement of appointment of arbitration panel in dispute between North American Aviation, Inc., and the United Auto Workers August 6 Remarks to the delegates of Girls Nation 7 Statement by the President on the drought in Kentucky and Tennessee 7 Statement by the President on the importance of voting 8 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commis- sion, on the administration of the Federal em- ployee security programs 8 Memorandum on the Federal employee security programs 8 Report by the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security on the Government Employee Security Program submitted to the President by the National Security Council 8 Letter accepting resignation of A. Devitt Vanech as Deputy Attorney General 9 Letter accepting resignation of Richard D. Searles as Under Secretary of the Interior 1 2 Remarks following a meeting at the White House with Governor Stevenson and Senator Sparkman 13 Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury on the tax benefits of the shipping industry 13 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce on the tax benefits of the shipping industry 13 White House announcement of proposed ap- pointment of John J. Muccio as U.S. representa- tive on the U.N. Trusteeship Council 14 Letter to congressional committee chairmen on the Tariff Commission recommendation on im- ports of Swiss watches 14 Message to D wight D. Eisenhower inviting him to a luncheon and briefing at the White House 14 White House announcement of appointment of Adm. Alan G. Kirk as Director of the Psycho- logical Strategy Board 14 Letter to Junius B. Wood on the Minerva clock and other antique White House furnishings 15 Remarks to delegates to a CIO-PAC rally 16 Statement by the President upon signing procla- mation increasing import duty on dried figs 19 Statement by the President reviewing the 1953 budget August 20 Letter accepting resignation of Roy Blough from the Council of Economic Advisers 20 Letter to Capt. Charles G. Ewing on the repatri- ation of prisoners of war in Korea 21 Remarks to a group of exchange teachers from Great Britain, France, and Canada 22 Statement by the President: The Jewish New Year 22 Remarks to a group of students from Kansas high schools 26 Letter accepting resignation of Ellis Arnall as Director, Office of Price Stabilization 28 White House statement announcing the for- mation of a Telecommunications Planning Committee 28 Statement by the President: Labor Day 28 White House release concerning report by the U.S. Special Representative in Europe. 28 Report to the President by Ambassador William H. Draper, Jr., U.S. Special Representative in Europe 29 Special message to the Congress on the trade agreement with Venezuela 29 Emergency board report on dispute between Trans World Airlines, Inc., and certain of its employees 29 Emergency board report on dispute between Northwest Airlines, Inc., and certain of its em- ployees September 1 Rear platform remarks at Pittsburgh, Pa. 1 Rear platform remarks at Crestline, Ohio 1 Labor Day address in Milwaukee 2 Rear platform remarks at Cincinnati, Ohio 2 Rear platform remarks at Parkersburg, W. Va. 2 Rear platform remarks at Clarksburg, W. Va. 2 Rear platform remarks at Grafton, W. Va. 2 Rear platform remarks at Keyser, W. Va. 2 Rear platform remarks at Martinsburg, W. Va. 3 White House statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the President's Air- port Commission 4 Remarks to the President's Committee on Na- tional Employ the Physically Handicapped Week 1224 Appendix A September 4 Statement by the President upon issuing order establishing a Commission on Immigration and Naturalization 5 Letter to Henry H. Fowler asking him to serve as Director, Office of Defense Mobilization 8 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, concerning air service between the United States and Mexico ii Statement by the President concerning Repub- lican control of the press ii Remarks at a ceremony marking the issuance of the "Women in the Armed Services" commemo- rative stamp 12 Letter accepting resignation of Telford Taylor as Administrator, Small Defense Plants Adminis- tration 12 White House announcement of recess appoint- ments of U.S. representatives to the seventh session of the U.N. General Assembly 15 Letter accepting resignation of Cyrus S. Ching as Director, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 16 Address in Philadelphia at the American Hospi- tal Association Convention 17 Remarks to the delegates to the Theatre Owners Convention 17 Address before the National Conference on Citizenship 17 Remarks at the signing of the Pakistan wheat loan documents 17 White House statement on the signing of the Pakistan wheat loan documents 18 Statement by the President concerning a report on forced labor in the Soviet Union 1 8 Statement by the President on the death of Joseph H. Short 19 Letter accepting resignation of Vice Adm. E. L. Cochrane as Chairman and member, Federal Maritime Board 20 Remarks in New London at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy 22 Letter accepting resignation of Robert F. Jones as member, Federal Communications Commis- sion 22 Remarks to a group of actors and officials of the motion picture industry of India September 24 Letter to the Secretary of Commerce directing him to head a mission to survey European in- dustrial progress 26 Remarks to the National Citizens' Committee on United Nations Day 26 Letter accepting resignation of Karl R. Bendetsen as Under Secretary of the Army 26 Remarks to representatives of the National Coun- cil of Churches 26 Remarks to delegates to the International Con- ference on Agricultural and Cooperative Credit 26 Remarks at a luncheon with members of the National Symphony Orchestra 27 Letter to the Chairman, Federal Trade Commis- sion, requesting him to make an economic study 27 Radio and television remarks opening the Na- tion's Community Chest campaigns 28 Statement by the President on the death of David K. Niles 29 Letter to the President from the Chairman, Fed- eral Trade Commission, on the economic study requested by the President 29 White House release concerning a proposed study of the watchmaking industry 29 Rear platform remarks at Breckenridge, Minn. 29 Trainside remarks at Fargo, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Grand Forks, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Larimore, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Lakota, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Devils Lake, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Minot, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Berthold, N. Dak. 29 White House release concerning final report of Commission on Renovation of the Executive Mansion 29 Rear platform remarks at Stanley, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Tioga, N. Dak. 29 Rear platform remarks at Williston, N. Dak. 29 A recorded interview with the President 29 Rear platform remarks at Wolf Point, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Wolf Point, Mont. 1225 Appendix A September 30 Rear platform remarks at Glasgow, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Malta, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Chinook, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Havre, Mont. 30 Address at Tiber Dam, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Shelby, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Cut Bank, Mont. 30 Rear platform remarks at Belton, Mont. October 1 Memorandum to the President from the Director, CIA, concerning his testimony before a con- gressional committee investigating employee loyalty 1 Rear platform remarks at Columbia Falls, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Hungry Horse, Mont. 1 Address in Montana at the dedication of the Hungry Horse Dam 1 Remarks at Kalispell, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Whitefish, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Eureka, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Libby, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Troy, Mont. 1 Rear platform remarks at Bonners Ferry, Idaho 1 Rear platform remarks at Sandpoint, Idaho 1 Address at Spokane, Wash. 1 Address on a radio program sponsored by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union campaign committee 2 Rear platform remarks at Ephrata, Wash. 2 Rear platform remarks at Wenatchee, Wash. 2 Rear platform remarks at Skykomish, Wash. 2 Rear platform remarks at Snohomish, Wash. 2 Rear platform remarks at Everett, Wash. 2 Address at Seattle, Wash. 2 Rear platform remarks at Kent, Wash. 2 Address at Tacoma, Wash. 3 Rear platform remarks at Klamath Falls, Oreg. 1226 October 3 Rear platform remarks at Dunsmuir, Calif. 3 Remarks at Redding, Calif. 3 Rear platform remarks at Red Bluff, Calif. 3 Rear platform remarks at Gerber, Calif. 3 Rear platform remarks at Davis, Calif. 4 Address at San Francisco 4 Address at Oakland, Calif. 5 Seventh quarterly report to the President by the Director of Defense Mobilization entitled "New Resources Bring New Opportunities" 6 Rear platform remarks at Salt Lake City, Utah 6 Address at Provo, Utah 6 Rear platform remarks at Helper, Utah 6 Rear platform remarks at Grand Junction, Colo. 6 Rear platform remarks at Rifle, Colo. 6 Rear platform remarks at Glenwood Springs,. Colo. 7 White House release concerning Government purchases from small business concerns 7 Report to the President by the Administrator of General Services 7 Rear platform remarks at Malta, Colo. 7 Rear platform remarks at Salida, Colo. 7 Rear platform remarks at Canon City, Colo. 7 Rear platform remarks at Pueblo, Colo. 7 Address at Colorado Springs 7 Rear platform remarks at Limon, Colo. 7 Remarks at Denver, Colo. 7 Rear platform remarks at Akron, Colo. 8 Rear platform remarks at Pacific Junction, Iowa 8 Rear platform remarks at Hamburg, Iowa 8 Address at Shenandoah, Iowa 8 Rear platform remarks at St. Joseph, Mo. 8 Rear platform remarks at Sedalia, Mo. 8 Rear platform remarks at Jefferson City, Mo. 9 Rear platform remarks at Indianapolis, Ind. Appendix A October 9 Rear platform remarks at Anderson, Ind. 9 Rear platform remarks at Muncie, Ind. 9 Rear platform remarks at Bellefontaine, Ohio 9 Rear platform remarks at Marion, Ohio 9 Rear platform remarks at Galion, Ohio 9 Address at Cleveland 9 Rear platform remarks at Erie, Pa. 9 Address at Buffalo, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Batavia, N.Y. io Remarks at Rochester, N.Y. io Remarks at Syracuse, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Oneida, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Rome, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Utica, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Amsterdam, N.Y. io Remarks at Schenectady, N.Y. io Remarks at Albany, N.Y. io Rear platform remarks at Hudson, N.Y. io Remarks at Yonkers, N.Y. io Remarks at Grand Central Station, New York City ii Address in Harlem upon receiving the Franklin Roosevelt Award 1 1 Address at a Columbus Day dinner in New York City 15 Letter accepting resignation of Donald W. Nyrop as Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board 1 6 Remarks at North Haven, Conn. 1 6 Remarks at Wallingford, Conn. 1 6 Remarks at Meriden, Conn. 1 6 Remarks at Middletown, Conn. 1 6 Remarks at New Britain, Conn. 16 Address at Hartford, Conn. 1 6 Rear platform remarks at Windsor Locks, Conn. 1 6 Rear platform remarks at Thompsonville, Conn. October 1 6 Remarks at Springfield, Mass. 1 6 Remarks at Worcester, Mass. 16 Rear platform remarks at Clinton, Mass. 16 Remarks at Lowell, Mass. 1 6 Rear platform remarks at Nashua, N.H. 1 6 Address at Manchester, N.H. 17 Rear platform remarks at Portsmouth, N.H. 17 Remarks at Somersworth, N.H. 17 Remarks at Dover, N.H. 17 Rear platform remarks at Rockingham, N.H. 17 Rear platform remarks at Exeter, N.H. 17 Rear platform remarks at Plaistow, N.H. 17 Remarks at Haverhill, Mass. 17 Remarks at Lawrence, Mass. 17 Rear platform remarks at Maiden, Mass. 17 Address at Boston, Mass. 17 Address prepared for delivery before the Mobili- zation Conference of the National Jewish Wel- fare Board 1 8 Remarks at Brockton, Mass. 1 8 Remarks at Taunton, Mass. 1 8 Remarks at Fall River, Mass. 18 Address at Providence, R.I. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at Westerly, R.I. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at New London, Conn. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at Old Saybrook, Conn. 1 8 Trainside remarks at New Haven, Conn. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at Bridgeport, Conn. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at Norwalk, Conn. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at Stamford, Conn. 1 8 Rear platform remarks at New Rochelle, N.Y. 18 Remarks at 10th Street and 2d Avenue, New York City 1 8 Remarks at the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza, New York City 1227 Appendix A October 1 8 Address in Brooklyn 20 Statement by the President on the Republican position on immigration 20 Statement by the President concerning the im- port quota on shelled filberts 21 Rear platform remarks at Wilmington, Del. 21 Remarks at Jersey City, N.J. 21 Remarks at Newark, N.J. 21 Remarks at Elizabeth, N.J. 21 Remarks at New Brunswick, N.J. 21 Remarks at Trenton, N.J. 21 Remarks at Camden, N.J. 21 Address at Philadelphia, Pa. 21 Rear platform remarks at Bridgeport, Pa. 21 Remarks at Reading, Pa. 21 Address at Pottsville, Pa. 22 Remarks at Scranton, Pa. 22 Remarks at Wilkes-Barre, Pa. 22 Rear platform remarks at Bloomsburg, Pa. 22 Rear platform remarks at Northumberland, Pa. 22 Rear platform remarks at Williamsport, Pa. 22 Rear platform remarks at Altoona, Pa. 22 Remarks at Johnstown, Pa. 22 Remarks at the Hill District Police Station, Pitts- burgh, Pa. 22 Address at the Syria Mosque in Pittsburgh, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at Wheeling, W. Va. 23 Rear platform remarks at Braddock, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at McKeesport, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at Connellsville, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at Rockwood, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at Myersdale, Pa. 23 Rear platform remarks at Cumberland, Md. 23 Rear platform remarks at Harpers Ferry, W. Va. 1228 October 23 Rear platform remarks at Wash., D.C. 25 Letter in observance of the 34th anniversary of the independence of Czechoslovakia 27 Statement by the President on the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Korea, 1 947-1 949 27 Letter accepting resignation of Joseph C. Dug- gan as Assistant Attorney General 27 Letter accepting resignation of T. Keith Glennan as a member, Atomic Energy Commission 27 Rear platform remarks at Willard, Ohio 27 Rear platform remarks at Deshler, Ohio 27 Rear platform remarks at Garrett, Ind. 27 Address at Gary, Ind. 28 Rear platform remarks at Winona, Minn. 28 Rear platform remarks at Red Wing, Minn. 28 Rear platform remarks at Hastings, Minn. 28 Remarks at St. Paul, Minn. 28 Remarks at Minneapolis, Minn. 28 Remarks at Duluth, Minn. 28 Address at Hibbing, Minn. 29 Rear platform remarks at Waterloo, Iowa 29 Rear platform remarks at Cedar Rapids, Iowa 29 Rear platform remarks at West Liberty, Iowa 29 Remarks at Davenport, Iowa 29 Rear platform remarks at Moline, 111. 29 Remarks at the Negro War Memorial in Chicago 29 Address at the Hotel Sherman in Chicago, 111. 30 Rear platform remarks at Muskegon, Mich. 30 Rear platform remarks at Grand Rapids, Mich. 30 Rear platform remarks at Lansing, Mich. 30 Rear platform remarks at Durand, Mich. 30 Rear platform remarks at Flint, Mich. 30 Rear platform remarks at Pontiac, Mich. 30 Remarks at Hamtramck, Mich. 30 Remarks at Maybury Grand in Detroit, Mich. Appendix A October 30 Address at the State Fair Coliseum in Detroit 31 Rear platform remarks at Toledo, Ohio 31 Rear platform remarks at Ottawa, Ohio 31 Rear platform remarks at Sidney, Ohio 31 Rear platform remarks at Troy, Ohio 31 Remarks at Dayton, Ohio 31 Rear platform remarks at Hamilton, Ohio 31 Address at Cincinnati, Ohio November 1 Rear platform remarks at Vincennes, Ind. 1 Rear platform remarks at Terre Haute, Ind. 1 Rear platform remarks at Danville, 111. 1 Rear platform remarks at Decatur, 111. 1 Rear platform remarks at Taylorville, 111. 1 Rear platform remarks at Litchfield, 111. 1 Rear platform remarks at Granite City, 111. 1 Address at St. Louis 2 Further statement by the President on the deci- sion to withdraw U.S. forces from Korea, 1947- 1949 3 Radio and television remarks on election eve 5 Statement by the President on the election of Dwight D. Eisenhower as President of the United States 5 Telegram to the President-elect 6 Statement by the President on the death of Representative Adolph J. Sabath of Illinois 7 Letter accepting resignation of Millard Caldwell as Administrator, Federal Civil Defense Admin- istration 12 Letter directing the Air Coordinating Com- mittee to make plans for observing the 50th anniversary of the Wright brothers flight 14 Remarks to the Directors of the National News- paper Publishers Association 16 Remarks on laying the cornerstone of the new Temple of the Washington Hebrew Congregation 18 Joint statement following a meeting with the President-elect 18 Message to the Congress transmitting second report on the Mutual Security Program November 19 Letter accepting resignation of John B. Dunlap as Commissioner of Internal Revenue 19 Address before the Association of Military surgeons 21 Remarks at a meeting of an orientation course conducted by the CIA 21 Statement by the President on the death of William Green 23 Remarks in Alexandria, Va., at the cornerstone laying of the Westminster Presbyterian Church 25 Letter to the Chairman, Civil Service Commis- sion, on the need for maintaining rosters of former mobilization personnel 25 Remarks to a group of business paper editors 26 White House announcement of appointment of H. Eliot Kaplan to head a study of Federal em- ployee retirement systems 26 Letter accepting resignation of William O'Dwyer as Ambassador to Mexico 26 Letter accepting resignation of Stanley Wood- ward as Ambassador to Canada 28 Letter accepting resignation of Robert T. Creasey as Assistant Secretary of Labor 28 Letter accepting resignation of W. John Kenney as Deputy Director for Mutual Security December 1 Citation accompanying Distinguished Service Medal presented to Admiral Souers 2 White House announcement concerning radio broadcasting during air attack 2 Letter accepting resignation of Philip C. Jessup as Ambassador at Large 4 Letter accepting resignation of Archibald Cox as Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board 4 White House announcement of appointment of Charles C. Killingsworth as Chairman, Wage Stabilization Board 5 Letter accepting resignation of Walter J. Don- nelly as U.S. High Commissioner for Germany and Chief of Mission 6 Statement by the President on German steps toward acceptance of the European Defense Com- munity agreements 7 Statement by the President on the need for "Operation Sky watch" 1229 Appendix A December 1 1 Letter from the Attorney General concerning the sale of the SS United States to the United States Lines 1 1 Report by the Board of Inquiry on labor dispute affecting the construction and operation of atomic energy facilities 12 Letter accepting resignation of Edwin A. Locke, Jr., as U.S. Representative on the Advisory Com- mission of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East 13 Letter to the Administrator, Economic Stabiliza- tion Agency, on the Wage Stabilization Board 15 Address at the National Archives dedicating the new shrine for the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights 16 Letter to Henry H. Fowler on his willingness to remain as Director of Defense Mobilization 16 Letter accepting resignation of Roger L. Putnam as Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency 16 Letter to Michael V. DiSalle on his appointment as Administrator, Economic Stabilization Agency 16 Address before the Alumni Association of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces 17 Remarks to the Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers 17 Remarks at the Wright memorial dinner of the Aero Club of Washington 18 Statement by the President on the report of the Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation 18 Report to the President by the President's Ad- visory Committee on Management 19 Address at the National War College 22 Letter to the Chairman, National Security Re- sources Board, concerning the report of the President's Materials Policy Commission 24 Remarks upon lighting the National Community Christmas Tree 29 Letter to Stephen J. Spingarn on ethics in Gov- ernment 30 Letter to committee chairmen on the need for continuing aid to the United Kingdom, France, and Italy 31 Letter accepting resignation of Robert Ramspeck as Chairman, Civil Service Commission 31 Statement by the President on the restrictions on imports of dairy products December 31 Eighth quarterly report to the President by the Director of Defense Mobilization, entided "The Job Ahead for Defense Mobilization" January 1953 1 Report by the President's Commission on Im- migration and Naturalization, entitled "Whom We Shall Welcome" 2 Letter recommending living expense deductions for the President, Vice President, and Speaker of the House of Representatives 2 Emergency board report on dispute between United Airlines, Inc., and certain of its employees 3 Memorandum on the Secretary of State's recom- mendation in the case of John Carter Vincent 5 Letter in response to the latest reports from the Bureau of the Census 5 Statement by the President on report "Whom We Shall Welcome" by the Commission on Immi- gration and Naturalization 6 Statement by the President upon issuing procla- mation enlarging the Olympic National Park 7 Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union 8 Statement by the chairman of the executive com- mittee of the Harry S. Truman Library, Inc. 9 Annual Budget Message to the Congress: Fiscal Year 1954 9 Statement by the President on the change in the public debt during his term of office 9 Special message to the Congress transmitting vol- ume one of the report of the President's Com- mission on the Health Needs of the Nation 9 Letter to the President-elect forwarding draft or- der "Establishing Special Personnel Procedures in the Interest of the National Defense" 9 Letter accepting resignation of Dan A. Kimball as Secretary of the Navy 9 Letter accepting resignation of Thomas K. Fin- letter as Secretary of the Air Force 9 Letter accepting resignation of Robert A. Lovett as Secretary of Defense 9 Letter accepting resignation of Frank Pace, Jr., as Secretary of the Army 9 Letter accepting resignation of William C. Fos- ter as Deputy Secretary of Defense 12 Letter to the Attorney General on the grand jury investigation of the international oil cartels 1230 Appendix A January ig^j 13 Special message to the Congress transmitting report of the President's Commission on Immi- gration and Naturalization 13 Letter to the Speaker transmitting proposed sup- plemental appropriations requests 13 Letter accepting resignation of Charles Sawyer as Secretary of Commerce 13 Letter accepting resignation of David Bruce as Under Secretary of State and as U.S. Alternate Governor of the International Bank for Recon- struction and Development 13 Letter accepting resignation of J. D. Small as Chairman of the Munitions Board 13 Letter accepting resignation of Anna M. Rosen- berg as Assistant Secretary of Defense 13 White House statement on the report by the Chairman of the National Security Resources Board 13 Letter in response to report by the Chairman, National Security Resources Board 14 Letter from the Chairman, Civil Service Com- mission reviewing the achievements of the Fed- eral personnel management system 14 Annual Message to the Congress: The President's Economic Report 15 Statement by the President on the Presidential press conference 15 Statement by the President commending the members of the Armed Forces 15 The President's farewell address to the American People 16 Statement by the President upon issuing order setting aside submerged lands of the continental shelf as a naval petroleum reserve January ig$s 16 Letter accepting resignation of Dean Acheson as Secretary of State 16 Letter accepting resignation of John W. Snyder as Secretary of the Treasury 16 Letter accepting resignation of James P. Mc- Granery as the Attorney General 16 Letter accepting resignation of Jesse M. Donald- son as Postmaster General 16 Letter accepting resignation of Oscar Chapman as Secretary of the Interior 16 Letter accepting resignation of Charles F. Bran- nan as Secretary of Agriculture 16 Letter accepting resignation of Maurice J. Tobin as Secretary of Labor 16 Report to the President from the President's Committee on Government Contract Compliance, entitled "Equal Economic Opportunity" 16 Message to the Congress transmitting third re- port on the Mutual Security Program 17 Memorandum concerning the organization of the George C. Marshall Research Foundation, Inc. 17 Letter accepting resignation of W. Averell Har- riman as Director for Mutual Security 19 Special message to the Congress on the Nation's land and water resources 19 Letter to the President-elect transmitting report of the President's Committee on Government Contract Compliance 19 Letter from the Secretary of Commerce report- ing progress on the recommendations of the President's Airport Commission 20 Letter to the President, American Federation of Government Employees, on the 70th anniversary of the merit system 1231 Appendix B — Presidential Documents Published in the Federal Register PROCLAMATIONS No. Date n F.£. 1952. Subject page 2.959 Jan- 5 Allocating tariff quota on certain petroleum products under the Venezuelan Trade Agreement 185 i960 Jan. 5 Modification of trade-agreement concession and adjustment in the rate of duty with respect to hatters' fur 187 1960 Modification of trade-agreement concession and adjustment in the rate of duty with respect to hatters' fur (Correction) 2.65 1961 Jan. 17 Addition of Devil's Hole, Nevada, to Death Valley National Monument — California and Nevada 691 2.962. Jan. 30 Inter-American Cultural and Trade Center 983 2.963 Feb. 4 Copyright extension : Denmark 1143 2.964 Feb. 18 Red Cross Month, 1952. 1547 2.965 Feb. 15 Redefining the boundaries of the Sitka National Monument, Alaska 1787 1966 Mar. 19 Armed Forces Day, 1951 2.587 1967 Mar. zi. Cancer Control Month, 1952. 1649 2.968 Mar. 19 Pan American Day, 1952. 2.82.9 2.969 Mar. 19 World Trade Week, 1952. 2.82.9 1970 Mar. 19 National Farm Safety Week, 1952. 2.831 1971 Apr. 5 Child Health Day, 1952. 3139 2.972. Apr. 17 Extra Registration 3473 2.973 Apr. 2.2. Mother's Day, 1951 3669 2.974 Apr. 2.8 Termination of the national emergencies proclaimed on September 8, 1939, and May 17, 1941 3813 2.975 Apr. 30 National Maritime Day, 1952. 1976 May 16 Olympic Week, 1952. 4607 1977 May 2.8 Flag Day, 1952. 4967 2.978 June 17 National Day of Prayer, 1952. 5537 2.979 June 15 Revocation of the duty suspension on lead 5785 1980 June 30 Immigration quotas 6019 2.981 July 17 United Nations Day, 1952. 6605 1982. July 18 Terminating the Turkish Trade Agreement Proclamations 6605 1232 Appendix B No. Date i7 F.R. 1952. Subject page 2.983 July 2.3 Revocation of the suspension of duties on zinc 6835 2.984 July 2.5 Citizenship Day, 1952. 6931 2.985 Aug. 15 National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week, 1951 7567 2.986 Aug. 16 Modification of trade agreement concession and adjustment in the rate of duty with respect to dried figs 7567 2.987 Aug. 18 Fire Prevention Week, 1951 7613 2.988 Sept. 18 General Pulaski's Memorial Day, 1952. 8469 1989 Sept. 19 Supplementary Trade Agreement: Venezuela 8469 2.990 Sept. 2.5 Columbus Day, 1952. 8605 2.991 Sept. 2.7 Imposing import fees on shelled and prepared almonds 8645 1991 Oct. 13 Korea — suspension of tonnage duties 9159 2.993 Oct. 15 Copyright — Principality of Monaco 9159 1994 Oct. 14 Armistice Day, 1952. 9713 2.995 Nov. 5 Establishment of the Coronado National Memorial — Arizona Ioi57 1996 Nov. 8 Thanksgiving Day, 1951 103 97 2.997 Nov. 15 Granting certain land to the City of Eastport, Maine, for public use .... I°53I 2.998 Nov. 2.0 Enlarging the Hovenweep National Monument — Colorado and Utah .... 10715 2.999 Dec. 1 United Nations Human Rights Day, 1952. 1092.1 3000 Dec. 2.4 Granting pardon to certain persons who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States since June 2.5, 1950 11833 3001 Dec. 2.4 Granting amnesty and pardon to certain persons convicted by court-martial of desertion from the Armed Forces of the United States 11833 18 F.R. page 3002. Dec. 31 Extending the period for the establishment of adequate shipping service for, and deferring extension of the coastwise laws to, Canton Island 149 J953 3003 Jan. 6 Enlarging the Olympic National Park, Washington 169 3004 Jan. 17 Control of persons leaving or entering the United States 489 EXECUTIVE ORDERS No. Date j7 F.R. 1951 Subject page 103 18 Jan. 3 Missouri Basin Survey Commission; establishment 133 103 19 Jan. 4 Northwest Airlines, Inc., and certain of its employees; creation of an emergency board to investigate a dispute 188 1032.0 Jan. 2.1 Lawson, Lawrence M.; further exemption from compulsory retirement for aSe 693 1233 Appendix B No. Date 17 F.R. 1951 Subject page 10311 Jan. 14 Inspection of income, excess-profits, declared value excess-profits, capital stock, estate, and gift tax returns by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administra- tion 791 10312. Jan. 16 Arizona and New Mexico; amendment of section 1 of Executive Order 10046 of March 14, 1949, as amended, transferring certain lands from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of the Interior 855 10313 Feb. 5 Small Defense Plants Administration; transferring certain functions and delegat- ing certain powers thereto 1145 10314 Feb. 6 Definitions of "solid fuels" and "domestic transportation, storage, and port facilities"; amendment of Executive Order 10161 of September 9, 1950, with respect thereto 1171 10315 Feb. 7 Medal for Humane Action; regulations governing award 1139 10316 Feb. 11 Inspection of income, excess-profits, declared value excess-profits, capital stock, estate, and gift tax returns by the Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments 1381 10317 Feb. 10 Government business; investigations relating to the conduct thereof 1645 10318 Feb. 10 Selective Service Regulations; prescribing a portion of 1645 10319 Feb. 15 Missouri Basin Survey Commission; amendment of Executive Order 103 18 of January 3, 1951 1705 10330 Feb. 19 Perkins, Frances; exemption from compulsory retirement for age 1875 1033 1 Mar. 4 Income tax returns; inspection by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 1963 10331 Mar. 7 Prescribing the Order of Succession of Officers to act as Secretary of Defense; Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force 1083 10333 Mar. 15 Pyke, Bernice; further exemption from compulsory retirement for age .... 1705 10334 Mar. 16 Mayer, Frederick C. ; exemption from compulsory retirement for age .... 1714 10335 ^ar. z% Provisional Intergovernmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe; designation as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities 1741 10336 Apr. 3 Medal of Freedom, establishment; amendment of Executive Order 9586 of July 6, 1945 z957 10337 Apr. 3 Postmasters of the fourth class; amendment of regulations governing the appointment thereof 1957 10338 Apr. 4 Mutual Security Act of 195 1 ; coordination procedures under section 507 . . . 3009 10339 Apr. 5 Disposition of certain housing; extensions of time relating thereto 3011 10340 Apr. 8 Certain steel companies; directing the Secretary of Commerce to take posses- sion and operate the plants and facilities thereof 3139 10341 Apr. 8 Rose Island and Tutuila Island Naval Defensive Sea Areas and Naval Air- space Reservations; discontinuance 3143 10341 Apr. 11 Sugar Loaf Military Reservation and right-of-way thereto; restoring to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 3159 10343 Apr. 11 Tax returns; inspection by Committee on the Judiciary, House of Repre- sentatives 3159 1234 Appendix B No. Date 17 FR- 1952. Subject page 10344 Apr. 17 Selective Service Regulations; prescribing or amending portions thereof . . . 3475 10345 Apr. I7 Enlistments in the Armed Forces of the United States; extension 3477 10346 Apr. 17 Civil-Defense Emergency Plans; preparation by Federal Agencies 3477 10347 Apr. 18 Seal of the United States; providing for the affixing thereof to certain Presi- dential documents 352.1 10348 Apr. 2.6 Blocked property; continuing in force orders and regulations relating thereto . 3769 10349 Apr. ^ Declaring the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service to be a military service and prescribing regulations therefor 37^9 10350 May 14 Federal Civil Defense Administration; establishment of a seal 4473 1035 1 May 15 Designation of certain persons for the purpose of issuing provisional certificates of registry to certain vessels abroad 45 *7 10351 May 19 Safeguarding of vessels, harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities of the United States; amending regulations relating thereto 4607 10353 May n Coffelt, Mrs. Cressie E.; authorizing appointment to a competitive position without regard to the Civil Service Rules 4631 10354 May ^ Commissioned officers and employees of the Public Health Service; amend- ment of the regulations relating thereto 4831 10355 May ^ Authority of the President to withdraw or reserve lands of the United States for public purposes; delegation of, to the Secretary of the Interior 4831 10356 May 19 Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, continuing as a military service 4967 10357 June 4 Nantahala National Forest; inclusion of certain lands 5079 10358 June 9 Observance of holidays by Government agencies 5169 10359 June 9 Amending Executive Order 10161, as amended, with respect to certain plant fibers 52.69 10360 June 11 Air Coordinating Committee, establishment; amendment of Executive Order 9781 5337 10361 June 11 Whittier Defense Sea Area, Alaska; establishment 5357 10361 June 14 Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service; continuing as a military service 5413 10363 June 17 Selective Service Regulations; amendment of 5449 10364 June 17 Deviny, John J. ; exemption from compulsory retirement for age 5493 10365 June 14 Officer Personnel Act of 1947, as amended; suspension of certain provisions which relate to officers of the Marine Corps 5689 10366 June 16 Selective Service Regulations; amendment of 5749 10367 June 30 Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service; continuing as a military service 592-9 10368 June 30 Executive Order 10300, entitled ' 'Providing for the Administration of the Mutual Security Act of 195 1 and related statutes"; amendment of 592.9 10369 June 30 Section 103 (a) of the Renegotiation Act of 195 1; further designation pursuant thereto 5931 1235 Appendix B No. Date 17 F.R. 1952. Subject page 10370 July 7 Small Defense Plants Administrator; delegation of certain authority of the President thereto 6141 10371 July 9 Trans World Airlines, Inc., and certain of its employees; creation of an emer- gency board to investigate a dispute 6x13 10372. July 10 Northwest Airlines, Inc., and certain of its employees; creation of an emer- gency board to investigate a dispute 62.13 10373 July 14 Executive Order 1 01 61 with respect to real estate credit; amendment of . . . 6415 10374 July 15 Nicolet and Chequamegon National Forests, Wisconsin; enlargements of . . . 6457 10375 July 15 Restoring lands comprising the Round Top Military Reservation and rights- of-way thereto to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 6459 10376 July 18 Permanent appointments in the field service of the Post Office Department; pro- viding for 6681 10377 July 2.5 Composition of the Wage Stabilization Board; providing for 6891 10378 July 31 Restoring certain land at Hilo, Hawaii, to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 7Ic,7 10379 Aug. 2. Retirement of colonels of the Regular Army and the Regular Air Force; suspen- sion of the operation of certain provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947 applicable thereto 7107 10380 Aug. 2. United States High Commissioner for Germany; defining certain functions of 7107 10381 Aug. 6 Executive Order 9805, prescribing regulations governing payment of certain travel and transportation expenses; amendment of 72.05 10382. Aug. 9 Displaced Persons Commission; providing for the liquidation of the affairs of 732-3 10383 Aug. 11 Restoring certain lands at Palaau, Molokai, to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 7361 10384 Aug. 11 Restoring certain land reserved in connection with the Hilo Airport Military Reservation to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 7361 10385 Aug. 16 Removal of certain temporary housing; extension of time relating thereto . . 752.5 10386 Aug. 2.0 Inspection of files covering compromise settlements of tax liability 7685 10387 Aug. 2.5 Mutual Security Act of 195 1, as amended; specification of laws from which certain functions authorized thereby shall be exempt 7799 10388 Aug. 2.-/ Executive Order 8616 of December 19, 1940, revocation; placing Palmyra Island under the control and jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy 7877 10389 Aug. 30 Restoring certain land reserved for military purposes of the United States to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii 7959 10390 Aug. 30 Wage Stabilization Board; amending Executive Order 10161 of September 9, 1950, as amended, to provide for certain alternate members thereof .... 7995 10391 Sept. 3 Government personnel on foreign duty; amendment of Executive Order 10011 of October 2.2., 1948, as amended, authorizing the Secretary of State to exercise certain powers of the President with respect to the granting of allowances and allotments thereto 8033 10392. Sept. 4 President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization; establishment . . 8061 1236 Appendix B No. Date 1951 10393 Sept. 4 10394 Sept. 8 10395 Sept. 18 10396 Sept. 18 10397 Sept. 2.5 10398 Sept. 2.6 10399 Sept. 2.7 10400 Sept. 27 1 0401 Oct. 14 10402. 10403 Oct. 30 Nov. 5 10404 Nov. 5 10405 10406 10407 10408 10409 10410 10411 1 041 2. 10413 10414 10415 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 6 Nov. 10 Nov. ii Nov. 14 Nov. 14 Nov. 15 Nov. 17 Nov. 2.5 Dec. 2. 17 F.R. Subject page Clemency and Parole Board for War Criminals; establishment 8061 Employment in the Canal Zone; suspending certain statutory provisions relating thereto 8143 Certain temporary housing; extension of time relating to the disposition thereof 8449 Small Defense Plants Administration; establishment of a seal 8449 Continuing in effect certain appointments as officers and warrant officers of the Army and Air Force 8605 Military Protection of the Canal Zone 8647 Designating the Suregon General of the Public Health Service to perform certain duties under the International Sanitary Regulations (World Health Orga- nization Regulations 2) 8648 Executive Order 1012.1 of April 14, 1950, entitled "Regulations governing payment of disability retirement pay, hospitalization, and re-examination of members and former members of the uniformed services"; amendment thereof 8648 Trade-agreement concessions; prescribing procedures for periodic review of es- cape-clause modification thereof 9115 Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1948; enforcement thereof 9917 Reserving certain lands comprising a part of the Fort Missoula Military Reservation as an addition to the Fort Missoula District of the Lolo National Forest 10099 Restoring certain land reserved for military purposes to the Territory of Hawaii and transfering title to such land and to certain other lands to the Territory . 10099 Marks, Theodore; exemption from compulsory retirement for age 10131 United Air Lines, Inc., and certain of its employees; creating an emergency board to investigate a dispute 10131 Withholding of State or territorial income taxes by Federal agencies 10131 Transfer of the administration of the portion of the trust territory of the Pacific Islands which includes the islands of Tinian and Saipan from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of the Navy 10277 Purple Heart; award of to persons serving with the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard of the United States 10397 Specification of laws from which the escapee program administered by the Department of State shall be exempt ^495 Restoring certain lands comprising parts of the Aiea Military Reservation to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii Jo495 Senate Committee on the Judiciary; inspection of returns 10497 Restoring Kure (Ocean) Island to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii . 10497 Restoring land of the Upolu Point Military Reservation to the jurisdiction of the Territory of Hawaii io755 Executive Order 9949, entitled "Modifying Executive Order 972.1, providing for the transfer of personnel to certain Public International Organizations"; amendment thereof 10899 I237 55-672-^66- -Sl Appendix B No. Date j7 F.R. 1952. Subject page 10416 Dec. 1 Executive Orders 10^51 and 102.82., suspending the eight-hour law as to certain laborers and mechanics employed by the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior, respectively; amendment thereof 10899 10417 Dec. 3 Creating a Board of Inquiry to report on a labor dispute affecting the con- struction and operation of atomic energy facilities 1098 1 10417A Dec. 6 Excusing Federal Employees from Duty on Friday, December 16, 1952. . . . . 11187 10418 Dec. 6 Executive Order 10311 amended II][55 10419 Dec. 11 Restoring the possession, use, and control of certain land to the Territory of Hawaii and transferring title to such land to the Territory 1 12.17 10410 Dec. 17 Selective Service Regulations and Executive Order 10363 of June 17, 1952., amending the 11465 18 F.R. page 10411 Dec. 31 Providing for the physical security of facilities important to the national defense 57 !953 1042.2. Jan. 9 Employment on the Secretariat of the United Nations; prescribing procedures for making available to the Secretary General of the United Nations certain information concerning United States citizens employed or being considered for employment 139 10413 Jan. 14 Francisco, William P. ; conferring competitive civil-service status without regard to the competitive provisions of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations . . . 343 10414 Jan. 15 Prince, Norman E.; authorizing competitive status without compliance with the competitive provisions of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations . . . 383 10415 Jan. 16 Disposition of certain housing; extensions of time relating thereto 405 10416 Jan. 16 Naval petroleum reserve; setting aside submerged lands of the continental shelf 405 10417 Jan. 16 Disaster relief; administration of 407 10418 Jan. 17 Courts-martial, general; delegating to the Secretary of Defense authorityjof the President to empower certain commanding officers of the Armed Forces]to convene 408 10419 Jan. 17 Amendment of Executive Order 10179 of November 8, 1950, establishing the Korean Service Medal 408 10430 Jan. 17 Short, Mrs. Beth Campbell; authorizing appointment to a competitive position without regard to the Civil Service Rules and Regulations 437 10431 Jan. 19 National Security Medal 437 1238 Appendix B PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN PROCLAMATIONS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS Date Subject 17 F R. 1952. page Jan. 3 Letter: Trade Agreement; Carrying out the Torquay Protocol to the General Agree- ment on Tariffs and Trade and for other purposes 136 Mar. 15 Reorganization Plan 1 of 1951: Bureau of Internal Revenue 2.2.43, June 5 Letter: Suspension of certain imports from Hungary pursuant to Proclamation 1935 . 5079* June 13 Letter: Suspension of certain imports from Tibet pursuant to Proclamation 1935 . . . 5413; July 1 Reorganization Plan 5 of 1952.: Government of the District of Columbia Dec. 10 Letter: Date of Report of Board of Inquiry to report on a labor dispute affecting the construction and operation of atomic energy facilities 11119 18 F.R. 1953 page Jan. 17 Letter: Trade Agreements Extension Act of 195 1 593, 1239 Appendix C — Presidential Reports to the Congress Date of White Sent to House Subject Published Congress Release Foreign Service Retirement and Disability System H. Doc. 32.5 Jan. 10 .... Commodity Credit Corporation H. Doc. 32.4 Jan. 10 Jan. 10 Trade Agreement Escape Clauses H. Doc. 32.8 Jan. 10 Jan. 10 H. Doc. 41 July 10 July 10 (83d Cong.). National Science Foundation H. Doc. 32.9 Jan. 15 Jan. 15 Economic Report of the President H. Doc. 303 Jan. 16 Jan. 16 Midyear July 19(H) July 19 July 2.i(S) National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 37th annual report Jan. 2.8 .... National Advisory Council on International Monetary and Financial Problems H. Doc. 353 Feb. 14 Feb. 14 H. Doc. 52.3 June 2.6 June 2.6 Mutual Defense Assistance Program, 4th report H. Doc. 352. Feb. 12. Feb. 12. Air Coordinating Committee H. Doc. 356 Feb. 18 Feb. 18 Mutual Security Program H. Doc. 371 Mar. 7 Mar. 7 Railroad Retirement Board Mar. 2.8 Mar. 2.8 Operations of Department of State H. Doc. 410 Mar. 31 Mar. 31 Operations and Policies of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Bretton Woods Agreement Act, 3d special report H. Doc. 52.2. June z6 June 2.6 United States participation in the United Nations H. Doc. 449 July 3 July 3 Lend-Lease Operations, 33d report H. Doc. 465 July 3 July 3 Panama Railroad Company Apr. zz .... Federal Civil Defense Administration H. Doc. 445 Apr. 2.4 Apr. 14 National Capital Housing Authority May 14 May 14 Civil Service Commission H. Doc. 2.81 May 13 May 2.3 Panama Canal, Annual Report of Governor June 3 .... I24O Appendix D — Rules Governing This Publication [ Reprinted from the Federal Register, vol. 30, p. 15133, dated December 7, 1965 ] TITLE I— GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter I — Administrative Committee of the Federal Register PART 32— PRESIDENTIAL PAPERS Subpart A — Annual Volumes PUBLICATION AND FORMAT Sec. 32.1 Publication required. 32.2 Coverage of prior years. 32.3 Format, indexes, ancillaries. SCOPE 32.10 32.11 Basic criteria. Sources. OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION 32.15 The Congress. 32.16 The Supreme Court. 32.17 Executive agencies. 32.18 Governmental requisitions. 32.19 Extra copies. PUBLIC SALE 32.22 Sale of annual volumes. Authority: The provisions of this Part 32 issued under sec. 6, 49 Stat. 501, as amended; 44 U.S.C. 306. Sec. 6, E.O. 10530, 19 F.R. 2709; 3 CFR 1954-58 Comp. Subpart A — Annual Volumes PUBLICATION AND FORMAT § 32.1 Publication required. There shall be published forthwith at the end of each calendar year, a special edition of the Federal Register designated "Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States." Ordinarily each volume shall cover one calendar year and shall be identified further by the name of the President and the period covered. Note: This program started with the year 1957. § 32.2 Coverage of prior years. After conferring with the National Historical Publications Commis- sion with respect to the need therefor, the Adminis- trative Committee may from time to time authorize the publication of similar volumes covering specified calendar years prior to 1957. Note: The committee has approved the publi- cation of volumes starting with the year 1945. § 32.3 Format, indexes, ancillaries. Each an- nual volume, divided into books whenever appro- priate, shall be separately published in the binding and style deemed by the Administrative Committee to be suitable to the dignity of the office of President of the United States. Each volume shall be appro- priately indexed and shall contain appropriate ancillary information respecting significant Presi- dential documents not published in full text. § 32.10 Basic criteria. The basic text of the volumes shall consist of oral utterances by the Presi- dent or of writings subscribed by him. § 32.11 Sources, (a) The basic text of the volumes shall be selected from: (1) Communica- tions to the Congress, (2) public addresses, (3) transcripts of press conferences, (4) public letters, (5) messages to heads of state, (6) statements re- leased on miscellaneous subjects, and (7) formal executive documents promulgated in accordance with law. (b) In general, ancillary text, notes, and tables shall be derived from official sources. official distribution § 32.15 The Congress. Each Member of the Congress, during his term of office, shall be entitled to one copy of each annual volume published dur- ing such term. Authorization for furnishing such copies shall be submitted in writing to the Director and signed by the authorizing Member. Appendix D § 32.16 The Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of the United States shall be entitled to 12 copies of the annual volumes. § 32.17 Executive agencies. The head of each department and the head of each independent agency in the executive branch of the Government shall be entitled to one copy of each annual volume upon application therefor in writing to the Director. § 32.18 Governmental requisitions. Legislative, judicial, and executive agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment may obtain, at cost, copies of the annual volumes for official use upon the timely submission to the Government Printing Office of a printing and binding requisition (Standard Form 1). § 32.19 Extra copies. All requests for extra copies of the annual volumes must be addressed to the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Extra copies must be paid for by the agency or official requesting them. public sale § 32.22 Sale of annual volumes. The annual volumes shall be placed on sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, at prices determined by him under the general direction of the Administrative Committee. [F.R. Doc. 65-131 19; Filed Dec. 6, 1965; 8:48 a.m.] I24I INDEX [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] "Abraham Lincoln/' Carl Sandburg, 136 [17] Accident prevention Aviation, 40, 351 Coal mines, 18 (p. 94), 19, 150, 206 Government employees, 150 Highway, 93, 243, 249 Industrial, 18 (p. 92), 150, 243, 367 (p. 1151) Act for International Development, 18 (p. 76), 20 A.D.A. See Americans for Democratic Action Adams, John Quincy, 26 [18] Adams, Sherman, 292 [13], 295 n., 312, 370 Addonizio, Repr. Hugh J., 303 [3] Addresses or remarks, election campaign. See Election campaign Addresses or remarks on commemorative or special occasions Aero Club of Washington, Wright Memo- rial Dinner, 351 Americans for Democratic Action, na- tional convention banquet, 129 AMVETS Headquarters, Washington, dedication, 101 Armed Forces Day dinner, 128 Central Intelligence Agency orientation course, 335 Civil Air Patrol dinner, 125 Civil Service, 69th anniversary, 14 Coffelt, Pvt. Leslie, dedication of memo- rial plaque, 134 Columbia Scholastic Press Association, convention, 63 Democratic National Committee, recep- tion, 71 Addresses or remarks on commemorative or special occasions — Continued DiSalle, Michael V., dinner honoring, 34 Howard University, commencement, 169 Hungry Horse Dam, Mont., dedication, 271 Jeff erson- Jackson Day dinner, 69 Jewish National Fund dinner, 144 Labor Day, 241 Meeting with Governor Stevenson and Senator Sparkman, remarks follow- ing, 224 National Archives, dedication of shrine at> 347 National Civil Service League, 70th an- niversary meeting, 117 National Housing Conference, 21st annual banquet, 120 NATO meeting, remarks to Secretaries Acheson and Snyder on return from, 48 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 3d anniversary, 77 Pakistan wheat loan document, signing, 252 Steel industry, meeting with management and labor leaders, 118 35th Division, reunion, 157, 158 U.S. Military Academy, sesquicentennial convocation, 130, 131 U.S.S. Nautilus, keel-laying ceremony, 170 Veterans of Foreign Wars, dinner, 29 Voice of America radio transmitting ship, dedication, 54 Washington Hebrew Congregation tem- ple, cornerstone laying, 330 1243 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Addresses or remarks on commemorative or special occasions — Continued Westminster Presbyterian Church, Alexan- dria, Va., cornerstone laying, 337 "Women in the Armed Services" com- memorative stamp, issuance, 248 Addresses or remarks to foreign or interna- tional groups Agricultural and Cooperative Credit, In- ternational Conference on, 261 Business and Professional Women, Inter- national Federation of, 188 Christian Endeavor, International Society of, 168 Displaced persons from Europe, 94 Exchange teachers, 234 India, motion picture industry representa- tives, 256 Organization of American States, Council of, 92 Addresses or remarks to national groups American Hospital Association conven- tion, 249 Archives, Eighth Annual Institute on the Preservation and Administration of, 174 Associated Church Press, 100 Association of Immigration and National- ity Lawyers, 350 Association of Military Surgeons, 333 Attorneys Association, United States, 165 Business paper editors, 339 Girls Nation, American Legion, 220 Masonic group, 45 National Citizens' Committee on United Nations Day, 259 National Conference on Citizenship, 251 National Council of Churches, 260 National 4-H Club Camp, 176 National Jewish Welfare Board, 297 National Newspaper Publishers Associa- tion, Directors, 329 Addresses or remarks to national groups — Continued National Rural Electric Cooperative As- sociation, 62 Political Action Committee, CIO, rally, 230 President's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped, 243 Task Force Smith, 172 Theater Owners Convention, 250 Young Men's Christian Association and Government Assembly, 184 Addresses or remarks at presentation cere- monies Agriculture Department honor awards, 126 Association of Immigration and Nation- ality Lawyers, acceptance of citation, 350 Capital Press Club plaque, acceptance, 153 Carillon from the Netherlands, accept- ance, 78 Congressional Medal of Honor Burke, 1st Lt. Lloyd, 90 Hernandez, Cpl. Rodolfo, 90 Lee, M. Sgt. Hubert L., 24 Rodriguez, Sgt. Joseph C, 24 Wilson, T. Sgt. Harold E., 90 Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Brother- hood Medal, acceptance, 290 Gift, acceptance, 99 National Forensic League medal, accept- ance, 173 National Newspaper Publishers Associa- tion plaque, acceptance, 329 Teacher of the Year award, Mrs. Geraldine Jones, 133 Young American Medal for Bravery and Young American Medal for Service, 181 Administrative Management, President's Committee on, 84, 85 Administrative Procedures Act, 148 1244 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Advertising circulars, postal rates, 367 (p. 1144) Advisory Committee on Management, 18 (P- JI5) Aero Club of Washington, Wright Memo- rial Dinner, 351 Aeronautics, National Advisory Committee for, 18 (p. 73), 367 (p. 1135) Africa Assistance, 15, 55 Communism in, 81 Emergence of new nations, 366 Agricultural Act of 1949, 210 Agricultural Adjustment Act, 267, 277 [6], 285, 312, 315 [4] Agricultural commodities Fruits and vegetables, exemption from price control, 190 Loans, 267 Marketing research, 367 (p. 1150) Perishable, 267 Price supports. See Price supports Prices, 18 (p. 91), 315 [4], 321 [3-5] Production, 18 (p. 78), 367 (pp. 1148- 1150) Sales, 215 Surplus, 18 (p. 91), 367 (p. 1 148) See also specific commodities Agricultural and Cooperative Credit, Inter- national Conference on, 261 Agricultural Marketing Act, 367 (p. 1150) Agriculture, 18 (pp. 90-92) Acreage allotments, 277 [6] Capacity, 215 Census of (1954), 367 (p. 1156) Conservation, 267, 277 [6] Cooperatives, 15, 267 Credit. See Credit Crop insurance, 367 (p. 1148) Dairy products, restrictions on imports of, 360 Defense effort, contribution to, 126 Economy, 367 (pp. 1148-1150) Agriculture — Continuel Electric power, increased use on farms, 126 Employment European refugees on U.S. farms, pro- posed, 65 Manpower needs, 15, 18 (p. 94), 186, 187 Expenditures for, 231, 367 (p. 1131) Farm income. See Income Farm programs. See Farm programs Fertilizer, increased use of, 388 Irrigation projects, 388 Migratory farm workers, Mexican, 367 (pp. 1150-1151) Production, 5, 15, 18 (p. 90), 62, 126, 185, 187, 190, 210, 215, 315 [4] Republican stand, campaign remarks on, 316 Research, 5, 18 (p. 92), 126, 267, 367 (p. 1150) Resources, conservation and development, 289 [1], 367 (p. 1149), 376 Southern, growth and diversification, 194 Workers, draft deferment, 185-187 See also Farm economy Agriculture, Department of, 81, 185, 221 [ 1 ],263 Commodity exchange margins, proposed authority to regulate, 15 Conservation programs, 3 Disaster relief loans, 18 (p. 100) Honor awards presentation, address, 126 Key agricultural commodities, financing of production expansion, 18 (p. 78) Missouri River Basin program, 98 [9] Natural resources, role in development of, 388 Stevenson, Gov. Adlai, former service in, 317 U] Agriculture, Secretary of (Charles F. Bran- nan), 15, 126, 186, 268 [2], 282 [7], 285 n., 292 n., 360 Campaign remarks, 292 [11] 55-672—66 -82 1245 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Agriculture, Secretary of — Continued Dairy product imports, imposition of ad- ditional restrictions, 359 [2, 14] Farm plan, 17 [30], 285 Grain storage program, Republican charges concerning, 267 News conference remarks on, 31 [17, 18] Resignation, 385 Air Coordinating Committee, 155, 328 Air Coordinating Committee, Chairman (Donald W. Nyrop), letter, 155 Air Force, 131 Bases, 217, 367 (p. 1137) Increase in strength, 17 [2, 10, 17], 18 (pp. 64, 69), 158, 275, 367 (pp. 1 134, "37) Petroleum products, use of, 379 Racial discrimination, elimination, 290, 3i5 [6] Air Force, Secretary of the (Thomas K. Finletter), 125, 128, 131 Air traffic control, 40 Aircraft, military B-36 bomber, 158 Budget allocations for, 17 [31, 34] Jet engines, development, 275 Procurement, 18 (pp. 70-71) Production, 5, 17 [17], 158, 238 [12] Senate investigation of, 175 [10] Aircraft industry, 158 Airlines Mexico, service to, 246 Subsidies, 367 (p. 1144) Airmail, payments to carriers, 18 (p. 83), 367 (p. 1 144) Airport Commission, President's, 40, 41, 155 Airports Federal aid, 18 (p. 83), 155, 351, 367 (p. 1144) Location and use, study of, 40 Airpower, issue in election campaign, 156 [8] Akers, Robert W., 98 [18] Akron, Colo., remarks at, 282 [8] Alaska Elective governorship, proposed, 35 [15] Purchase of, 107 [10] Statehood, proposed, 5, 35 [15], 49 [8], 149 [15], 274 [5] Alaska Housing Act of 1949, 18 (p. 99) Albany, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [9] Alcoa Aluminum Corp., 274 [2] Aldrich, Winthrop W., 317 [5] Alexander, Archibald S., 303 [2-7] Alfson, George, 313 [1, 2] Ali, Mohammed, 252 Alien and Sedition Acts, 182 Aliens, 182, 367 (p. 11 63) Allen, Repr. A. Leonard, 312 Allied Middle East Command, proposed, 6 Altoona, Pa., campaign remarks, 306 [6] Aluminum Company of America, 22 Aluminum industry Labor dispute, 22 National security, effect of strike on, 22 Production, 15, 22, 33, 271 United Kingdom, agreement on imports from, 6 n. Aluminum Workers of America, Interna- tional Council of, 22 American Action Committee Against Mass Deportations in Rumania, remarks, 145 American Bankers Association, 266 [2] American Chemical Society, 117 American Economic Review, 305 American Export Lines, 177 American Falls power project, 367 (p. 1146) American Federation of Government Em- ployees, 390 American Federation of Labor, 22, 37, 58, 266 [3], 286 [8], 336 American Hospital Association, 268 [8] American Legion, 220, 238 [1] American Medical Association, 2 [3], 135, 143, 167, 194, 213, 249, 258 [9, 15], 268 [8], 278, 284 [5] 1246 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] American Political Science Association, 68 American Republics. See Latin America; Organization of American States American Revolution, 81 American Smelting and Refining Co., 37 American Society of Newspaper Editors, 88 [1], 98 Americans for Democratic Action, 129, 136 [7]> 197 [19] AMVETS Headquarters, Washington, dedi- cation, 10 1 Amsterdam, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [7] Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 37 Anderson, Gov. C. Elmer, 97 Anderson, Sen. Clinton P., 146 Anderson, Eugenie, 217, 313 [2] Anderson, Ind., campaign remarks, 286 [2] Anderson, Gov. Sigurd, 97 Andrews, Bert, 98 [42] Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, 297 Annapolis, Md., U.S. Naval Academy, 130, 142 Antitrust laws, 204, 215 Apprenticeship, Bureau of, 367 (p. 1151) Appropriations Administrative expenses, Federal, 231 Atomic Energy Commission, 17 [1], 147, 170 Civil defense, 106 Compensation and pensions, veterans, 18 (p. 109) Defense, 88 [10], 98 [38], 101, 123 [7], 125, 128, 131, 144, 149 [5], 158, 170, 178, 268 [5, 7], 273, 275, 283, 295 [8], 298 [8, 10], 304, 313 [4], 315 [4], 322 Flood control, 109, 267 [6, 9] Foreign assistance, 65, 149 [20], 156 [12], 268 [51,281,295 [11,307 Housing, defense, 18 (p. 97) Independent offices, 201 Appropriations — Continued Migratory farm labor, recruiting and re- ception centers, 18 (p. 94) Power and water resources development, 18 (p. 89) River and harbor development, 109 Rural Electrification Administration, 282 [3] Soil conservation, 242 [4] Supplemental, 200, 205, 231 Tennessee Valley Authority, 147 Unexpended, 17 [n] Veterans Administration, 135 Arab-Israeli dispute, 297 Arab states, technical assistance, 18 (p. 76) Archives, Eighth Annual Institute on the Preservation and Administration of, re- marks to, 174 Archivist of the United States (Wayne C. Grover),347 Arco, Idaho, 170 Arkansas Campaign remarks, 193, 194, 195 [1-3] Candidates for public office, 197 [5] Flood control, 194, 195 [1,2] Gov. Sidney S. McMath, 193, 194, 195 [3], 197 [5], 228 [2] Power projects, 194, 195 [1, 2] Primary election, 228 [2] Rural electrification, 194 Arkansas Gazette, 228 [2] Arkansas Power and Light Co., 194 Armaments Atomic, development, 17 [4, 6, 8], 170, 275> 3^7 (PP- 1 145? I][46) Korean war, question of use in, 166 [ 12] Delivery to allies, 18 (pp. 64, 74), 231 Procurement, 18 (pp. 70-71), 275, 367 (p. 1130) Production, 15, 17 [2], 18 (pp. 64, 70-71, 74)>55>2i5 Research and development, 275, 367 (p. H37) 1247 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Armaments — Continued Rifles and ammunition, proposed NATO standardization, 6 Shipments to allies, 367 (p. 1139) Armed Forces, Industrial College of the, 127 [I3L349 Armed Forces, President's Committee on Religion and Welfare in, 297 Armed Forces, U.S. Administrative economy and efficiency, 287 Civilian control of, 286 [3] Dispatch abroad, 44 [1, 13] Equal opportunity, 169 Expenditures for, 231, 367 (p. 1136) Facilities, operation and maintenance, 18 (P- 7*)> 367 (P. 1137) In Europe, 57 In Korea, 18 (p. 69), 56, 57, 107 [2], 128, ^h *35> J39> !72> 268 [5]? 29°> 356, 378 Withdrawal, 295 [8], 299, 300, 310, 3l6> 3J9 [i]> 320> 321 UL 322> 323 Increase in strength, 5, 12, 15, 17 [2], 18 (pp. 64, 65, 69-73), I28, 231, 317 [7], 3*9 [3]> 349> 366, 367 (pp. "3°> "34) Personnel. 5^ Military personnel Racial discrimination, elimination, 290, 3i5 [6] Real property, acquisition, 18 (p. 71) Refugees, European, proposed enlistment, Research and development program, 18 (P- 72) Reserves. See Reserve forces Statement commending, 377 [2] Students, deferment of induction, 18 (p. 103) Voting rights, 38, 68, 96, 124 Women, role in, 248 Armed Forces Day dinner, remarks, 128 Armed Services, President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the, 315 [6] Army, 131 Divisions in Germany, rotation of, 345 [ 1 ] Hospitals, surplus, 212 Increase in strength, 17 [2], 18 (pp. 64, 69), 158, 275, 367 (p. 1 134) Information program in Japan, transfer to State Department, 18 (p. 77) Materiel reclamation program, 287 Petroleum products, use of, 379 Racial discrimination, elimination, 290, 3i5 [6] Railroads, emergency operation, 136 ftn. (P. 359) Termination, 141 Army, Secretary of the (Frank Pace, Jr.), 128, 131, 163, 169, 193, 320 Letter, 141 Arnall, Ellis G., 26 [6, 15, 29], 31 [1], 34, 221 [3] Arnold, Benedict, 296 Asapansa-Johnson, C, 290 n. Ashburton, Lord, 268 [4] Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia Assistance, 57, 242 [2], 313 [2] Economic, 5, 18 (pp. 76-77), 55, 144, 2°5> 367 (p- 1 140) Military, 15, 18 (pp. 76-77), 55, 196, 354. 367 (p. iMo) Technical, 18 (pp. 76-77), 55, 144, 205 Communism in, 5, 6, 12, 55, 81, 131, 295 [8], 307, 366, 367 (p. 1 140) Defense, 354 Emergence of new nations, 366 Immigration to U.S., 182 Rubber production, 12 U.S. policy in, 288 Aspinall, Repr. Wayne N., 32, 280 [4-6], 282 [1, 2] Assassination attempt on the President, 134 1248 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Associated Church Press, remarks, ioo Associated States. See Indochina Association of Immigration and Nationality Lawyers, remarks, 350 Association of Military Surgeons, remarks, 333 Atkinson, Eli, 157 n. Atlantic Command, allied, 6, 16, 25 Atomic bomb, 170 Japan, use in war against, 366, 378 Presidential responsibility for use of, 283 Soviet explosions, 5, 158, 366 U.S. monopoly (1945-1949), 366 Atomic energy Budget allocations for, 17 [1, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16,25,29] Civilian control of, 298 [10] Controls, 170, 366 Development, 18 (pp. 64, 87), 367 (pp. 1145,1146), 376 Expenditures for development, 231 First nuclear reaction, 367 (p. 1145) Fissionable materials, production facilities, 367 (p. 1 145) Materials, procurement, 18 (p. 87) Peaceful uses, 170, 218, 219, 280 [4], 333, 366, 367 (p. 1 146) Power projects, 170, 275 Research and development, 147, 170, 275, 280 [4], 366, 367 (p. 1146) Soviet development, 156 [10] Atomic Energy Commission, 18 (p. 87), 117, 170, 249, 333, 340 Air maps of installations, publication, 35 [3]_ _ Appropriations, 147, 170, 200 Fissionable materials production program, .I7[I] Atomic Energy Commission, Chairman (Gordon Dean), 45, 170 Attorney General (James P. McGranery), x36 [9L J43> l6l> i65> l82> 268 [3] Attorney General — Continued Appointment and confirmation, 75 [2, 4], 88 [19] Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Letters, 177, 372 Resignation, 382 Attorney General (J. Howard McGrath), 7 [4, 6, 9], 26 [24], 37, 38, 45, 79 Dismissal of Special Assistant Newbold Morris, 75 [2, 4], 98 [36] Income tax returns, congressional request to examine, 64 [6] Resignation, question of , 2 [4], 75 [2, 4] Special Assistant to, subpoena power for, 35 [!]>36>44 [10], 64 [15] Attorney General, Office of the, Congres- sional investigation of, 91 Attorneys Association, United States, re- marks to, 165 Auriol, Vincent, 99 Australia Military assistance, 95 Mutual defense treaty, 5, 26 [21], 95 Refugees, immigration to, 65 Austria Assistance, 55 Communist aggression in, 69 Figl, Leopold, 127 [14] Mass deportations in, 145 U.S. Ambassador Walter J. Donnelly, 98 [40] Automobiles, price controls, 33 Aviation, civil, 125, 328, 351 Air traffic defense control, 18 (p. 83) Airlines, assistance to, 18 (p. 83) Airmail, payments to carriers, 18 (p. 84) Awards for contributions to, 351 n. Federal aid, 367 (p. 1144) Growth, 351 Mexico, air service to, 246 Navigation and safety aids, 18 (p. 83) Safety, 40, 351 See also Aircraft, military; Airports 1249 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Awards and citations Agriculture Department honor awards, 126 Association of Immigration and National- ity Lawyers, acceptance, 350 Civil aviation, awards for contributions to, 35in- Congressional Medal of Honor, 125 Burke, 1st. Lt. Lloyd, 90 Hernandez, Cpl. Rodolfo, 90 Lee, M. Sgt. Hubert L., 24 Rodriguez, Sgt. Joseph C, 24 Wilson, T. Sgt. Harold E., 90 Distinguished Service Medal Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., 152 Ridgway, Lt. Gen. Matthew B., 132 Souers, Rear Adm. Sidney W., 340 National Newspaper Publishers Associa- tion, acceptance of plaque, 329 Teacher of the Year award, Mrs. Geral- dine Jones, 133 See also Addresses or remarks at presenta- tion ceremonies B-36 bomber, 158 Bailey, Cleveland M., 242 [3] Bailey, Steve, "Congress Makes a Law," 292 [3] Balance of payments, 15 Foreign nations, 215 France, 15 Nations receiving U.S. aid, balance-of -pay- ments problems, 203 United Kingdom, 15 Balch, Richard, 359 [11] Baldwin, Raymond, 298 [9] Banks Deposits, insurance, 276 Farm credit operations, 367 (p. 1 149) Investments, 215 Loans, 15, 215 Reserve requirements, 15 Stability, 291 Bard, Judge Guy K., 286 [8], 303 [9, 10], 3°4> 3°5> 3°6 [>-3> 5> 6L 3°8 t2> 4~61 Barkley, Alben W. See Vice President Barr, George, 243 Barrett, Repr. William A., 304 Bardett, E. L., 149 [15] Bartley, Robert T., 49 [1, 15] Bartley, Mrs. Samuel E. (Meddie Rayburn), 49 [1] Baruch, Bernard M., 127 [13], 149 [12] Bases abroad, U.S. Air Force, 367 (p. 1137) Greenland, 217 United Kingdom, 6 Batavia, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [1] Batavia Daily News, 289 [1] Batesville, Ark., campaign remarks, 195 b] Batt, Dan, 311 [2], 319 [2] Battle Act. See Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951 Bayard, Alexis I., 303 [1] Beardsley, Gov. William S., 97 Beau, Maj. Gen. Lucas V., 351 Bebell, Clinton J., 286 [8] Beck, Earl W., 44 [7] Beckworth, Repr. Lindley, 123 [11], 238 [4] Beggs, David W., 321 [4] Bell, Daniel W., 203 n. Bellefontaine, Ohio, campaign remarks, 286 [4] Belton, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [9] Bennett, Henry G., 5, 144, 261 Benton, Sen. William, 31 [12], 170, 292 [ 1- 5, 7, 8], 293, 298 [7-11] Berlin Airlift, 107 [2], 366, 378 Communist aggression in, 69, 107 [2] News conference remarks, 149 [8] Soviet blockade, 279, 366 U.S. policy in, 279 Bernhard, Prince, 73, 74, 77 n., 78 1250 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Berthold, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [8] Bethesda, Md., 135 Bible, gift to the President, 260 Biddle, Francis, 129 Biffle, Leslie L., 174, 193, 253 [5] Bill of Rights, 63, 117, 165, 288, 313 [4, 5], 322> 347> 366> 373 Billings, Josh, 127 [1] Bingham, Barry, 98 [4] Bingham, Hiram, 362 n. Biography, American Dictionary of, 7 [10] Birthday, the President's, 123 [1,9] Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, 341 Black, Justice Hugo L., 161 Blaine, James G., 127 [18] Blair, Lt. Gov. James T., Jr., 127 [ 1 ] Blair House, occupancy of, 378 Bland, Richard Parks, 127 [18] Blanding, Sarah G., 203 n. Blatnik, Repr. John A., 313 [6], 314 Blind persons, occupational training, 243 Bloomsburg, Pa., campaign remarks, 306 [3] Boatner, Gen. Haydon L., 127 ftn. (p. 337) Boise, Idaho, speech by Gen. Eisenhower, comments on, 233 [151,319 [4] Boland, Edward P., 292 [9] Bolivia, tin, negotiations concerning, 2 [8, 14], 26 [14] Bolte, Maj. Gen. Charles L., 310 Bonds, savings, 367 (pp. 1133, 1161) Interest on, 15, 18 (pp. 68, 115) News conference remarks, 17 [3, 9, 13] Bonham, Tex., 49 [ 1 ] Bonner, Gov. John W., 266 [13], 268 [2-4, 7-9], 269, 270 [1, 4-8], 271, 274 [4], 278 Bonners Ferry, Idaho, campaign remarks, 270 [9] Bonnet, Henri, 99 Bonneville Power Administration, 18 (p. 89), 388 Boone, Vice Adm. Joel T., 135 Bosone, Repr. Reva Beck, 280 [ 1 ] Boston, Mass., campaign remarks, 296 Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, U.S.-Can- ada, 23, 102 Bourgholtzer, Frank, 98 [40] Bowles, Chester, 34, 298 [7] Bowron, Fletcher, 233 [ 13 ] Boyle, William M., Jr., 149 [17] Braddock, Pa., campaign remarks, 308 [2] Bradley, Gen. Omar N., 128, 130, 131, 320, 353 [5, 8], 377 [18], 378 Brandt, Raymond P., 17 [34], 35 [1], 75 [5L 98 [3°> 34L I07 [6L I]C5 [l6L I23 [14], 127 [6], 377 [7, 16] Braniff Airways, 246 Brannan, Charles F. See Agriculture, Sec- retary of Brannan, Ray, 342 [3] Brannan plan, 17 [30], 285 Brazil, proposed visit by Secretary Acheson, 166 [14] Breckenridge, Minn., campaign remarks, 266 [1] Brewer Trophy, 351 n. Brewster, Sen. Owen, 26 [10, 11], 149 [20] Bricker, Sen. John W., 304, 312, 315 [3] Bridgeport, Conn., campaign remarks, 298 [9] Bridgeport, Pa., campaign remarks, 303 [9] Bridges, Sen. Styles, 129, 266 [13], 268 [2] Briggs, Ellis O., 115 [15] Brigham, Utah, 135 Brigham Young University, 281 Broadcast to the Nation, announcement of, 359l>>4>5>7] Broadcasters, National Association of, 43 n. Brockton, Mass., campaign remarks, 298 [ 1 ] Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 136 ftn. (p. 359) 125 1 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 136 ftn. (P-359) Browdy, Benjamin, 35 [2] Brown, Fred, 295 [2] Brown, Vice Adm. Wilson, 335 Browning, Gov. Gordon, 221 [ 1 ] Brucker, Herbert, 98 [12] Brunsdale, Gov. C. Norman, 97 Bryan, William Jennings, 63, 127 [18], 274 [i]>3i5[i]>3i7l>] Buchanan, Frank, 308 n. Buchanan, Repr. Vera, 308 [2] Buckley, Repr. Charles A., 102 Budenz, Louis, 362 n. Budget, 33, 117 Balancing, prospects of, 15, 366 Cash budget, 215 Cash surplus, 15 Fiscal 1951,367 (p. 1 130), 368 Fiscal 1952, 97, 367 (p. 1 130), 368 Fiscal 1953, 21 [23], 85, 109, 128, 135 Carryover figure, 17 [18] Cash budget, consolidated, 231 Difficulty of drafting, 17 [19] Increase, 17 [2], 18 (p. 63) National security emphasis, 17 [2] News conference on, 17 News conference remarks, 31 [9], 334 [7^7] Obligational authority, 18 (pp. 65, 66), 231 Receipts, miscellaneous, 18 (pp. 6y, 68) Reduction by Congress, question of, 17 Review statement, 231 Water resources development, alloca- tions, 3 Fiscal 1954, 275, 388 Obligational authority, 367 (pp. 1129, 1 130) Receipts, estimates, 367 (p. 1133) Long term planning, need for, 367 (p. 1 164) B udge t — Continued Messages to Congress Fiscal 1953, 18 Fiscal 1954, 367 Public debt, fluctuations during Presi- dent's term, 368 Reduction, question of, 17 [2], 218 Surplus, 215, 272 Budget, Bureau of the, 18 (pp. 67-68, 114), 86, 98 [9], 147, 338, 370 Budget, Bureau of the, Director (Frederick J. Lawton), 17, 18 (p. 89), 38, 6y, 79, 325,388 Water resources development programs, establishment of standards, 367 (p. JI47) Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950, 18 (p. 116) "Budget in Brief," pamphlet, 26 [2], 368 Buffalo, N.Y., campaign remarks, 288 Bukowski, Peter I., 2 [4], 31 [6] Bull Moose Party, 280 [6] Bull Shoals Dam, Ark., 193, 194, 195 [1] Bullitt, Stimpson, 275 Bunche, Ralph, 290 n. Bunyan, Paul, legend, 270 [10] Burdick, Repr. Usher L., 266 [11] Burke, 1st Lt. Lloyd, Congressional Medal of Honor, 90 Burke, Thomas A., 287 n. Burke, Thomas H., 319 [1] Burma, 55 Burns, William H., 292 [9] Burrowes, Arthur V., 98 [13] Business, U.S., 266 [3] Advertising circulars, postal rates, 18 (p. 85) Antitrust laws, 215 Assistance to, 18 (pp. 77-79, 80-81), 367 (pp.1131, 1 142) Bank borrowing, volume of, 215 Census, 367 (p. 1156) Report on, 363 n. 1252 Index [ Main references aie to items except as otherwise indicated ] Business, U.S. — Continued Economic outlook of, 215 Enterprise system, 15, 215, 218, 376 Fair trade legislation, approval, 204 Growth, 366, 376 Income and profits, 5, 33 Inventories, 15, 215 Investments. See Investments Management, relations with labor, 15, 215, 367 (p. 1 150) Profits. See Profits, corporate Republican sympathies, 218 Sales volume, wholesale and retail, 215 Security issues, 15, 215 Unincorporated, income, 15 See also Small business Business Magazine Editors, Society of, 339 n. Business and Professional Women, Inter- national Federation of, 188 Business Week magazine, 308 [1], 317 m Buder, Sen. Hugh, 35 [15] Butler, Repr. John C, Defense Production Act amendment, 33 Butler, Sen. John M., 69 n. Butyl, synthetic rubber, 12 Byrne, James A., 304 Byrnes, Gov. James F., 64 [18], 221 [6], 303 [6], 304, 315 [6], 316, 378 Article in Colliers magazine, 98 [30] Support of Gov. Stevenson, 221 [6] Cabinet Briefing of Presidential candidates, 227 Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Designations by President-elect, 342 [11] Farewell lunch with, the President's plans for, 377 [15] Cain, Sen. Harry P., 49 [11], 129, 228 [8] Caldwell, Millard E., 9, 21 [27], 44 [8] California Campaign remarks, 277 [2-6], 278, 279 Candidates for public office, 156 [15] California — Continued Democratic National Convention, dele- gates to, 136 [13] Economic progress, 277 [4] Gov. Earl Warren, 242 [4], 277 [3, 6], 278, 279 Offshore lands, 146, 377 [11] Power projects, 277 [3, 4] California, University of, 261, 262 Cambodia, 18 (p. 76) Camden, N.J., campaign remarks, 303 [7] Campaign of Truth, U.S. information pro- grams abroad, 18 (p. 77) Campbell, James A., 390 Canada, 44 [2] Ambassador H. H. Wrong, 23 n. Exchange teachers, remarks, 234 Iron ore reserves, 18 (p. 88) Natural gas, exchange with U.S., 377 [25] Niagara power facilities, treaty concern- ing, 18 (p. 88) Pearson, Lester, 98 [32], 102 Refugees, immigration to, 65 St. Laurent, Louis, 23, 175 [7] St. Lawrence Seaway, question of joint development with U.S., 17 [27], 18 (p. 88), 23, 98 [32], 102, 175 [7], 189, 367 (p. 1 147) U.S. relations with, 377 [25] Visit by Sen. Taft, 317 [3] Cancer, 249, 268 [8], 333 Candidates for public office California, 136 [13], 156 [15] Colorado, 280 [4-6], 282 [1-4, 7, 8] Connecticut, 31 [12], 292, 293, 298 [6- «] Delaware, 303 [1] Democratic nominees, President's in- fluence on choice of, 197 [9] Idaho, 270 [9, 10] Illinois, 315 [6], 316, 321 [3-7] Indiana, 107 [5], 286 [1-3], 311 [3], 312, 321 [2] 1253 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Candidates for public office — Continued Iowa, 284 [1,2], 285, 315 [1-4] Massachusetts, 292 [9-12], 295 [7-9], 296,298 [1-3] Michigan, 3 17 [1-7] Minnesota, 266 [1], 313, 314 Missouri, 21 [8], 26 [18], 35 [6], 75 [5L 98 [39]> 149 [3], 156 [1], 197 [12], 284 [4,51,322 Montana, 266 [13], 268 [1-5, 7-9], 269, 270 [1,5-8], 271 New Hampshire, 292 [13], 294, 295 [1, 3, 5,6] New Jersey, 303 [2-7] New York, 21 [30], 221 [7], 288, 289 [1-8, 11], 298 [12,141,300 North Dakota, 266 [3-1 1] Ohio, 34, 253 [8], 277 [1], 286 [4-6], 287,311 [1,21,319 [1-6], 320 Oregon, 277 [1] Pennsylvania, 240 [1], 286 [8], 303 [9, 10], 304, 305, 306 [1-3, 5, 6], 308 [2-6] Presidential, 7 [2, 5, 7, 10, 12], 17 [20], 21 U> 5> 8> 9> I][> J3> T5> *7> 20> 28> 31, 32], 26 [3, 7, 8, 15], 28, 31 [10, 13, 15]. 35 [2L 44 [I2L 49 [4. 6> i3. M> 16], 64 [2, 9, 10], 69, 75 [11], 88 [18], 98 [2, 4, 7, 23, 24, 29, 31 1, I07 UL JI5 [3> IX> 20L I25> I27 [8, 15L *36 [8> TI> l6> l8L x49 [l8> 20L 156 [3], 166 [16], 175 [5, 8, 13, 14], 197 [8, 12], 218, 221 [6, 9, 12, 14], 227, 228 [3, 7, 12], 233 [4, 7, 11, 12, *5> T7L 238 [3> 8L 24° [h 2L 24T> 242, 247 [1], 253 [3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12], 258 [1, 7, 11, 12], 266 [1-11, 13], 268 [2-5, 7-9], 270 [1, 5-10], 271- 273, 274 [1-5, 7], 275-301, 303-308, 3™-324 Rhode Island, 298 [5], 299 Texas, 98 [33], 238 [5] Candidates for public office — Continued Utah, 280 [1,3] Washington, 272, 274 [1-3, 5, 7], 275, 276 West Virginia, 242 [3-6], 308 [ 1, 8] Wisconsin, 253 [10] Cannon, Cavendish, 31 [8] Cannon, Repr. Clarence, 358 Letters, 105, 180, 217 Canon City, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [3] Canton, Ohio, 286 [5] Cape Girardeau, Mo., 18 (p. 88), 367 (p. 1 146) Capehart, Sen. Homer E., 31 [6], 287 n., 312 Defense Production Act, amendment, 33, 82,287,305,319 [1] Capital Press Club plaque, acceptance, 153 Carey, James B., 203 n. Carillon from the Netherlands, acceptance, 78 Carlsen, Capt. Henrik Kurt, 29 n. Carlson, William E., 266 [1], 313, 314 Carr, John C, 295 [9] Carrick, Jimmy, 154 Carroll, John Albert, 282 [7] Cartels, international oil, 372 Carvel, Gov. Elbert N., 303 [ 1 ] Carver Village housing project, bombing of, 290 Carvey, John C, 286 n. Case, Sen. Francis, 297 Casey, James B., 7 [ 1 ] Cashmore, John, 288 n., 289 [i-n], 298 [12- 14], 300 Catholic University dramatic group depart- ing for Korea, remarks to, 56 Cattle, 15, 33. See Livestock Caudle, Theron Lamar, 31 [20], 247 [5], 258 [3] Cedar Rapids, Iowa, campaign remarks, 315 [2] 1254 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Celler, Repr. Emmanuel, 300, 373 Census, Bureau of the, 68, 367 (pp. 1155, 1156) Census, Bureau of the, Director (Roy V. Peel), letter, 363 Census of Manufactures, 363 n. Central Intelligence Agency, 69, 227, 228 [3, 71,296,299,303 [2], 335 Central Intelligence Agency, Director (Gen. Walter Bedell Smith), 335 Centralia, 111., mine disaster, 19 Chamber of Commerce, U.S., 43 n. Chambers, Lenoir, 98 [21 ] Chapman, Oscar L. See Interior, Secretary of the Charles University, Czechoslovakia, 47 Charleston, S.C., 35 [7] Chavez, Sen. Dennis, 3 Chelf, Repr. Frank L., 64 [6], 75 [2], 91 Cherry, Judge Francis, 228 ftn. (p. 518) Cherwell, Lord, 6 Chicago, 111. Campaign remarks, 315 [6], 316 Political corruption in, charges by news- man, 342 [3] Republican National Convention, 267, 293, 3*7 [3] Chicago, University of, 367 (p. 1 145) Chicago Sun Times, 342 [3] Chicago Tribune, 45 Chief Justice of the United States (Fred M. Vinson), 306 [51,347 Chiefs of Staff, Joint. See Joint Chiefs of Staff Children Child-labor laws, enforcement, 18 (p. 94) Migrant workers', educational aid for, 18 (p. 102) Public assistance, 367 (p. 1156) School lunch program, 18 (p. 105) U.N. programs for, 51 Welfare programs, 293 Children's Bureau, 18 (p. 106) Chile Ambassador Felix Nieto del Rio, 123 [13], 127 [2] Copper, discussions concerning, 123 [5, 13], 127 [2] Videla, Gabriel Gonzalez, 123 [13] China, Communist, 232, 354, 366 Korean war, intervention in, 5, 6, 12, 345 [l] China, Republic of Assistance, 18 (p. 76), 279, 366 Communist aggression, 354, 366 U.S. policy toward (1945), 362 n. U.S. relations with, 54 See also Formosa (Taiwan) Ching, Cyrus S., 37 Chinook, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [4] Chiperfield, Repr. Robert B., 312 Christian Citizenship, Crusade for, 39 Christian Endeavor, International Society of, remarks to, 168 Christmas, exchange of greetings with news- men, 353 [10,17] Christmas Tree, National Community, 356 Chrysler Motor Co., 175 [12] Chudoff, Repr. Earl, 304 Church, Stanley W., 298 [12] Churches, bombing of, 290 Churchill, Winston, visit to U.S., 5, 378 Joint statements, 6, 16 News conference remarks on, 2 [7, 10, 17], 7 [8], 17 [22], 44 [1, 13], 149 [10], 359 !>°] Welcoming remarks, 4 Cicero, 111., riots at, 290 Cincinnati, Ohio, campaign remarks, 242 OL320 CIO. See Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions Cities Service Oil Corp., 58, 238 [7] 1255 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Citizenship, National Conference on, 251 Citizenship, responsibilities of, 98 [16], 100, 251,270 [4] Citizenship Day, 251 Citizenship Seminar, Student, 183 Citron, William M., 292 [4], 298 [7] Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 351 Civil Aeronautics Administration, 18 (p. _ 83). 35 [3] Civil Aeronautics Administrator (Charles F. Home), 40,351 Civil Aeronautics Board, 18 (p. 84), 246, 35m., 367 (p. 1144) Civil Aeronautics Board, Chairman (Donald W. Nyrop), 155, 246 Civil Air Patrol, dinner remarks, 125, 351 n. Civil defense, 5, 106, 125 Administration program, news conference remarks on, 353 [3] Air raid warning system, 367 (p. 1154) Appropriation, 106, 205 CONELRAD plan, 344 n. Engineering supplies, stockpiling, 367 (p. "54) Expenditures for, 231, 367 (p. 1154) Federal aid, 18 (pp. 96, 97, 99) First anniversary of Federal legislation, statement, 9 Ground Observer Corps, Operation Sky- watch, 202 Civil Defense Administration, Federal, 9, 18, 106 Civil Defense Administrator (Millard Cald- well), 21 [27], 44 [8] Civil Defense Directors, National Associa- tion of State, 353 [3] Civil rights, 129, 175 [15], 273, 313 [4], 329, 347 Anti-lynching laws, 290 Armed Forces, compliance, 169 Constitutional guarantees, 288, 290, 297, 308 [7] Democratic stand on, 290 1256 Civil rights — Continued Education, equal opportunity, 290 Government contracts, compliance, 389 Issue in election campaign, 303 [3] Legislation, proposed, 5 Michigan program, defeat by legislature, 318 Mob violence, protection against, 290 Racial and religious discrimination, elimi- nation, 169, 218, 288, 289 [7], 290, 297, 300, 303 [3, 4], 304, 315 [6], 317 [8], 318, 321 [2], 336, 366, 376, 378 Republican stand on, 218, 316 Voting. See Voting rights Civil Rights, President's Committee on, 169, 290,315 [6], 317 [8], 329 Civil service, 76, 1 17, 137 Customs employees, transfer to, 86 Internal Revenue collectorships, proposed civil service status, 1, 2 [13], n, 59, 117 Merit system, 14, 84, 117, 390 Personnel procedures for national defense, 370 Postmasterships, proposed civil service status, 18 (p. 85), 85 Retirement system, 18 (pp. no, 113), 207 69th anniversary, statement, 14 Trust funds, retirement and disability, 231 U.S. Marshals, transfer to, 87 See also Government employees Civil Service Commission, 18 (p. 112), 26 [5], 137, 160, 169, 185, 222, 243, 290,. 367 (p. 1 162), 370 Civil Service Commission, Chairman (Rob- ert Ramspeck), 59, 114, 117, 223, 243 Letters, 222, 338 Civil Service League, National, 117 Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund, 367 (p. 1 1 63) Clapp, Gordon R., 144 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Clark, Dwight, Jr., 43 n. Clark, John D., 377 [16] Clark, Joseph S., Jr., 249 n., 304 Clark, Gen. Mark W., 131, 288 [4], 295 [8], 320 Appointment to U.N. command, Korea, 113 Clarksburg, W. Va., campaign remarks, 242 [3] Classification Act of 1949, 11, 114, 137, 160, 367 (p. 1 162) Clay, Gen. Lucius D., 279, 308 [3] Clements, Sen. Earle C, 3 Cleveland, Grover, 45, 136 [19], 282 [1], 321 [3] Cleveland, Ohio Campaign address, 287 Mayor Thomas A. Burke, 287 n. Cline,JohnW.,2[3] Clinton, Mass., campaign remarks, 292 [ n ] Clock for White House, acceptance, 99 Coal Mine Safety Act, 367 (p. 1151) Coal Operators' Association, Bituminous, 34i Coal industry Labor dispute, 341, 342 [7] Mine safety, 18 (p. 94), 19, 206 Prices, 341 Research, 305 Supplies above ground, 341 Unemployment, 305 Wages in, 342 [7] Coal and steel community, European, pro- posed, 5, 55, 151 Coast and Geodetic Survey, 266 [9, 10] Coast Guard, 18 (pp. 81, 83), 255 Coast Guard Academy, U.S., address, 255 Cochrane, Mrs. Elizabeth, letter, 167 Coflelt, Pvt. Leslie, dedication of memorial plaque, 134 Collective bargaining. See Labor Colleges and universities Federal aid, 18 (pp. 102-103), 231 Colleges and universities — Continued Housing loans, 367 (p. 1 154) Land-grant, Federal aid, 367 (p. 1155) Negroes, admission to, 290 Scholarships, proposed, 231 Collier Trophy, 351 n. Collins, Gen. J. Lawton, 128, 320 Colorado Campaign remarks 280 [4, 6], 282, 283 Candidates for public office, 280 [4-6], 282 [1-4, 7, 8] Economic progress, 280 [4], 282 [4, 6, 8] Mineral despos its, 282 [1] Oil production, 280 [5] Power projects, 280 [4, 6] Colorado River storage project, 280 [4, 6] Colorado Springs, Colo., campaign remarks, 283 Colson, Brig. Gen. Charles F., 127 ftn. (p. 337) Columbia Falls, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [1] Columbia River Basin, water resources and power development, 97, 271, 274 [1], 294, 388 Columbia Scholastic Press Association, 63 Columbia University, 283, 284 [2], 289 [6] Columbus, Christopher, 291 Commerce, Department of, 225, 226 Materials controls, administration of, 18 (P- 79) Small business, assistance to, 15, 18 Transportation, aid and regulatory func- tions, 18 (pp. 82-84) Commerce, Secretary of (Charles Sawyer), 82, 98 [25], 115 [16], 118, 122, 135 [19], 155 n., 177, 225 Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Economic aid to Europe, proposal to end, 353 [13] Letters, 93, 226, 257 Maritime tax benefits study, 211 Resignation, 374 1257 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Commerce, Secretary of — Continued Steel industry, question of control proce- dures, 88 [13] Commission on the Health Needs of the Na- tion, 2 [3], 5, 15, 249, 278, 284 [5], 333>352>353 [*]> 3^7 (p- ^5^) Commission on Immigration and Natural- ization, 367 (p. 1 163) Commission on Migratory Labor, 18 (94, 102), 367 (p. 1151) Commission on the Organization of the Ex- ecutive Branch of the Government, 2 [13], 11, 18 (p. 116), 59, 84, 98 [6, 34], 107 ftn. (p. 293), 292 [11], 366, 377 [30] Committee for Constitutional Government, 294 Committee on Government Contract Com- pliance, 7 [1, 6], 18 (p. 94), 26 [1], 169 Committee on Retirement Policy for Federal Personnel, 367 (p. 1163) Commodity Credit Corporation, 18 (p. 91), 31 [18], 231, 266 [5, 7], 267, 268 [2], 285, 312, 367 (p. 1148) Commodity exchanges, control of trading margins, 15 Communications CONELRAD civil defense broadcasting system, 344 n. Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1142, 1144) Government control, question of, 107 [1, 8,9] Industry, assistance to, 18 (pp. 81-84) Information programs abroad, facilities for, 18 (p. 77) Television coverage of Congressional hearings, question of, 49 [7] Communism Administration measures against, 297 Campaign remarks, 283 Comments on, 246 [1], 251, 261 Communism — Continued Electoral defeat in Italy (1948), 291 Expectation of capitalist collapse, 291 Free world defense against, 317 [3] In Africa, 81 In Asia, 12, 81 In China, 232 In North Korea, 232 In U.S., 251,295 [8] Attempts to infiltrate Government, 296, 362 n. Defense against, 296, 303 [2] Influence in Democratic Party, charges of, 69 Opposition to free trade union move- ment, 251 President's attitude toward, 39 "Softness" toward, Republican charges of, 300, 303 [2], 313 [4] Influence in Government, charges of, 89 Propaganda, 145, 215, 217 Refugees and escapees from, immigration toU.S.,3i7[7] Versus democracy, 295 [8], 366, 378 Communist aggression and expansion, 54, 57, 74, 101, 144, 170, 196, 215, 232, 242 [2], 266 [8], 268 [5], 274 [7], 275, 279, 280 [1], 282 [7], 288, 289 [2], 292 [4], 297> 3*3 [!-3]> 3T4> 3l6> 3J7 I>L 32I> 327>347>354>366>369 Administration measures to halt, Republi- can opposition, 218 Asia, 5, 6, 12, 55, 81, 131, 295 [8], 307, 366,367 (p. 1 140) Austria, 69 Berlin, 69, 107 [2] Burma, 55 Campaign remarks, 282 [2], 317 [1, 6], 3!9[6] China, 354, 366 Czechoslovakia, 47, 309 Defense against, 319 [1, 3], 366 1258 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Communist aggression and expansion — Con. Germany, 354 Greece, 69, 107 [2], 303 [2], 354, 366, India, 144,303 [2] Indochina, 18 (p. 76), 49 [9], 55, 345 [41,367 (p. 1140) Iran, 69, 107 [2, 11, 14, 16] Issue in election campaign, 322 Italy, 69, 288 Japan, 354 Korea, 6, 12, 15, 17 [2], 18 (p. 64), 69, 81, 107 [2], 121, 131, 132, 135, 158, 196, 217, 251, 259, 266 [2, 11], 268 [5], 276, 279, 295 [8], 299, 305, 308, 3i3l>>3>5]>3i5 [2, 4J.3I8, 319 [i]> 321 [1, 4], 322, 345 [4], 349, 354, 366, 378 Malaya, 55 News conference remarks, 345 [4] Philippines, 18 (p. 76), 55, 367 (p. 1140) Soviet, 319 [6], 320, 332 Trieste, 107 [2] Turkey, 69, 107 [2], 303 [2], 354, 378 Yugoslavia, 107 [2] Communist bloc, 366 Foreign trade of, 105, 180, 217, 358 Internal stresses, 5 Peaceful liberation, question of, 238 [6, 16] Refugees and escapees, 65, 164, 207, 288 Uprisings in, U.S. position on, 88 U.S. information program in, 18 (p. 77) U.S. relief program, 288 See also specific countries Community Chest, 264, 280 [4] Community development, 18 (pp. 95-100) Defense, 18 (pp. 97, 106), 367 (p. 1152) Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1152- 1154) Federal aid, 18 (p. 96) Compton, Dr. Karl T., 131 Compton, Wilson, 54 n. Comptroller General (Lindsay C. Warren), 177 CONELRAD (Control of Electromagnetic Radiation), 344 n. Conflict-of-interest legislation, proposed, 258 [13] Congress Adjournment, question of, 149 [11, 15] Budget reduction by, question of, 17 [23] Cloture rule, views of Gov. Stevenson, 221 [14] Committee sessions, question of television coverage, 49 [7] Conflict-of-interest legislation, proposed, 258.[l3]. Economic policy, coordination, 376 House of Representatives Churchill, Winston S., request for in- formation on Presidential talks with, 44 [ 1, 13] Impeachment of President, rumors of, 107 [3] Pay of members, 207 Investigations Government employees, loyalty, 5, 26 [5. 24], 377 [24] John Carter Vincent loyalty case, 362 n. Katyn Forest massacre, 317 [7] Korean war, 345 [ 1 ] Legislative record, 218, 241, 242 [3, 5, 6], 266 [4, 7, 13], 267, 268 [2], 280 [1, 3], 288, 289 [1], 297, 298 [13], 303 [9l> 306 [5], 3°8 [3]> 3X9 [3> 5] Mexican migrant labor agreement, ques- tion of action on, 2 [5] News conference remarks, 64 [3] Parties, voting record in, 319 [3, 4] Procedural rules, 290 Salaries of Members, 258 [ 14] Senate Committee assignments for freshman members, reform of, 377 [12] 1259 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Congress — Continued Senate — Continued Filibuster, question of repeal of Rule 22, 359 [18, 19] Former Presidents, proposed member- ship, 26 [10, 11], 75 [8], 377 [30] Missouri seat, question of the President's candidacy, 75 [5], 197 [12], 377 .[29] President's service in, 318, 377 [12] Secretary (Leslie Biffle), 193 Special session, question of, 221 [4], 228 [9], 233 [16] U.S. forces in Korea, role in decision to withdraw (1948-49) Congress, letters to Members of Buckley, Repr. Charles A., St. Lawrence Seaway project, 102 Cannon, Repr. Clarence, foreign assist- ance, 105, 180, 217, 358 Chelf, Repr. Frank L., request for infor- mation from executive agencies, 60 Connally, Sen. Tom Foreign assistance, 27, 105, 180, 217, 358 Mutual Security Director, powers of, 67 Refugees in Europe, assistance, 66 St. Lawrence Seaway project, 102 Cooper, Repr. Jere, expense allowances for President, Vice President, and Speaker of House, 361 George, Sen. Walter F., expense allow- ances for President, Vice President, and Speaker of House, 361 Hayden, Sen. Carl, military personnel, voting rights, 124 Maybank, Sen. Burnet R. Annual leave for Government em- ployees, 108 Atomic energy program, 147 Steel strike, 159 McClellan, Sen. John L., Bureau of Inter- nal Revenue, reorganization, 53 Congress, letters to Members of — Continued McKellar, Sen. Kenneth Flood control appropriations, 109 Foreign assistance, 105, 180, 217, 358 Millikin, Sen. Eugene D., expense allow- ances for President, Vice President, and Speaker of House, 297 President of Senate and Speaker of House Appropriation bill, supplemental, 200 Defense Production Act amendments, 148 Emergency Powers Continuation Act, 38?79 Internal Revenue Bureau, reorganiza- tion, 59 Materials Policy Commission, report, 192 Mine safety legislation, 19 St. Lawrence Seaway and power proj- ect, 189 Steel strike, 103, 159 U.N. Children's Emergency Fund, U.S. contribution, 5 1 Reed, Repr. Daniel A., expense allowances for President, Vice President, and Speaker of House, 361 Richards, Repr. James P. Foreign assistance, 27 n., 105, 180, 217, 358 Mutual Security Director, powers of, 67 Refugees in Europe, assistance, 66 Russell, Sen. Richard B. Foreign assistance, 27 n., 105, 180, 217, 358 Korean prisoner-of-war camps, uprising in, 163 Military construction, 178 Refugees in Europe, assistance, 66 St. Lawrence Seaway, 175 ftn. (p. 432) Stanley, Repr. Thomas B., military person- nel, voting rights, 124 1260 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Congress, letters to Members of — Continued Vinson, Repr. Carl Foreign assistance, 27 n., 105, 180, 217, 358 Refugees in Europe, assistance, 66 Congress, Library of, 174 Congress, messages to Budget Fiscal 1953, 18 Fiscal 1954, 367 Defense Production Act, proposed exten- sion, 33 Economic reports, 15, 215, 376 Flood damage insurance, 119 Germany, conventions on relations with, 151 Greece and Turkey, admission to NATO, protocol on, 8 Land and water resources development, 388 Military personnel, voting rights, 68 Mutual Security Program, 55 Plans respecting, the President's, 345 [3], 353 [7.91.359 [5^6] Puerto Rico, constitution, 104 Refugees and displaced persons, 65 Reorganization plans, 11, 84-87, 114 St. Lawrence Seaway project, 23 State of the Union, 5, 366 Steel strike, 83, 161 Subpoena power for Special Assistant to Attorney General, 36 Venezuela, trade agreement with, 239 Veterans' benefits, 138 Congress, reports to, messages transmitting Civil Defense Administration, Federal, 106 Civil Service Commission, 137 Economic reports, 15, 215 Health Needs of the Nation, President's Commission on, 369 Immigration and Naturalization, Presi- Congress, reports to — Continued dent's Commission on, 373 Metals industry, nonferrous, labor dis- pute, 37 Mutual security program, 61, 332 National Science Foundation, 13 Rubber production, 12 Trade agreements, escape clauses in, 10 United Nations, U.S. participation, 196 Congress of Industrial Organizations, 22, 58, 88 [9], 216, 230 "Congress Makes a Law," Steve Bailey, 292 [3]_ Congressional Medal of Honor, 24, 35 [12], 90, 125, 157, 250 "Congressional Record," 266 [1], 269, 270 [10], 274 [1], 280 [4], 282 [3], 289 [6, 7, 10], 295 [9],3o6 [7], 319 [il Conkling, Roscoe, 127 [18] Connally, Sen. Tom, 27 n., 217, 262, 358 Letters, 66, 6y, 102, 105, 180 News conference remarks on, 44 [11], 98 [33l>334[i8] Connecticut Campaign remarks, 292, 293, 298 [6-1 1] Candidates for public office, 31 [12], 292, 293,298 [7-1 1 ] Gov. John D. Lodge, 170 Connecticut River Basin, 292 [7] Connellsville, Pa., campaign remarks, 308 [4] Connelly, Matthew J., 2 [19], 45, 292 [11], 377 [J5] Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, 277 [6] Conservation of natural resources, 5, 69, 98 [9], 126, 179, 242 [4], 268 [2], 277 [4, 6], 281, 285, 366, 388 Federal aid, 388 Issue in election campaign, 221 [15] Constitution, Puerto Rican, message to Con- gress, 104 1261 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Constitution, U.S., 63, 117, 123 [10], 136 [17, 19], 161, 165, 169, 249, 251, 268 [8], 270 [4], 274 [7], 277 [2], 313 [5], 322,330,331,373 Amendments Treaties and executive agreements, pro- posed, 140 Twentieth, 367 (p. 1129) Civil rights guarantees, 129, 290 Popular sovereignty principle, 89 [3, 11], 292 [13] Presidency, powers under, no Shrine at National Archives, dedication, 347 State of the Union, provisions respecting messages, 353 [9] Constitutional Government, Committee for, 294 Construction industry, 15, 178, 366 Consumers Credit, 15, 190, 215 Demand, 15,33,55,289 [2, 8], 292 [10] Income, 15,289 [2] Price index, 18 (p. 95), no Savings, 15, 148 Spending, 15, 215, 263, 266 [7] Continental shelf, naval petroleum reserve, 379 Contract Compliance, Committee on Gov- ernment, 7 [1, 6], 18 (p. 94), 26 [1], 389 Contracts, Government Atomic energy development, 17 [1, 12, 29] Civil rights provisions, compliance, 389 Defense. See Defense contracts Contracts, labor. See Labor contracts Controlled Materials Plan, 15, 18 (p. 79) Controls, Government Allocation and limitation orders, 15 Campaign remarks, 319 [ 1 ] Controls, Government — Continued Commodity exchanges, trading margins, J5 Credit, 15, 18 (p. 77), 33, 190, 291, 376 Defense production, 190 Extension, proposed, 345 [5] Relaxation, prospect of, 15 Resources, allocation, 18 (pp. 77, 79) Strategic and critical materials, 15, 190, 367(p.n4i) Trade with Communist bloc, 358 See also Price controls; Rent control; Wage controls Cook, Lyle, 278 n. Cooke, Morris L., 388 Cooley, Repr. Harold D., 49 [4] Coolidge, Calvin, 195 [3] Cooper, Repr. Jere, 361 Cooperatives Agricultural, 15, 62, 267 Electric, 194 Taxes on, 62 Copper industry Chile, discussions with, 123 [5, 13] 127 [2]. Labor dispute, 37 Corcoran, Thomas J., 289 [3] Corn Price supports, 210, 367 (p. 1148) Production, 315 [4], 367 (p. 1148) Corps of Engineers, 18 (pp. 83, 88), 231, 367 (pp. 1 143, 1 146, 1 149), 388 Corrupt Practices Act, Federal, 143 Cost of living, 82, 138, 263, 268 [5], 305 Costigan, Edward, 282 [7] Cotton, price supports, 210 Council of Economic Advisers, 294, 376, 377 [16] Council of Free Czechoslovakia, 309 Courier, Voice of America vessel, 54 1262 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Courts, Federal Court of Appeals, 1 16 Ruling respecting employee loyalty pro- gram, 362 n. See also Judiciary, Federal; Supreme Court of the United States Cox, Archibald, 342 [4] Cox, Charles M., 127 [18] Cox, James M., 319 n. Cox, Mrs. James M., 319 n. Cox, Lester E., 157 n. Coy, Wayne, resignation, 49 [15] Craig, Lt. Gen. Howard A., 354 Craig, May, 7 [10], 17 [22], 26 [4], 49 [7], 75 UL 98 [>6L I07 [I2L l66 [18], 175 [12], 233 [8, 15], 258 [2] Craig, William H., 292 [13], 294, 295 [1, 3, 5,6] Credit Agricultural, 18 (p. 91), 126, 215, 231, 367 (p. 1 149) Consumer, 15, 190, 215 Controls, 18 (pp. 77, 80), 33, 190, 291, 376 Housing, 18 (pp. 97, 98), 120, 123 [18], 190 Indians, facilities for, 18 (p. 90) Mortgage, 231 Restraint program, voluntary, 15 Small business, facilities for, 18 (p. 79) Crestline, Ohio, campaign remarks, 240 [2] Crime, in District of Columbia, 233 [4], 238 [3] Critical and strategic materials. See Strate- gic and critical materials Cromwell, Oliver, 296, 303 [2] Crosser, Repr. Robert, 287 Crowley, David J., 296, 298 [ 1 ] Crusade for Christian Citizenship, 39 "Crusade in Europe," Dwight D. Eisen- hower, 7 [10] Cullen, Helen, 292 [12] Culp,Fred,286[3] Cumberland, Md., campaign remarks, 308 [7] Currencies, 15, 215, 319 [1], 367 (pp. 1133, 1134,1141) Cushing, Dr. E. H., 31 [3] Customs, Bureau of, reorganization, 84, 86, 117^37 Cut Bank, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [8] Czechoslovakia Communism in, 47, 309 Council of Free Czechoslovakia, 309 Independence, 34th anniversary, 309 Korean armistice commission member- ship, 121 Mass deportations, 145 Oatis, William N., imprisonment, 49 [12], ii5 [15] U.S. Ambassador Ellis O. Briggs, 115 [15] Dairy products, import restrictions on, 359 [2,141,360 Daniels, Jonathan W., 203 n. Danville, 111., campaign remarks, 321 [3] Danville (111.) Commercial-News, 321 [3] Darst, Joseph M., 322 Daughters of the American Revolution, 98 [28] Davenport, Iowa, campaign remarks, 315 [4] Da Vinci, Leonardo, 500th anniversary of birth, statement, 89 Davis, Bette, 273 Davis, Calif., campaign remarks, 277 [6] Davis, Dowdal H., 7 [ 1 ] Davis, Elmer H., 136 [18] Davis, Thomas W. S., letter, 328 Dawson, Repr. William L., 315 [6], 317 Dayton, Ohio Campaign remarks, 319 [5] Mayor Louis Lohrey, 319 n. 1263 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Dean, Gordon E., 45, 170 Dean, Maj. Gen. William F., 29 n. Debt, Bureau of the Public, 367 (p. 1 161 ) Debt, national, 272, 349 Fluctuations during President's term, 368 Increase, 17 [3], 18 (p. 68), 215, 367 (p. 1 133) Interest on, 15, 18 (pp. 114-115), 231, 367 (pp. 1 163, 1 164) Limit, 17 [5] Management, 15, 215 Reduction, 17 [33,366 Decatur, 111., campaign remarks, 321 [4] Declaration of Independence, 169, 182, 347, 366 Deep Rock Oil Corp., 58 Deer Creek power project, 367 (p. 1146) Defense, Department of, 55, 79, 96, 117, 146, 228, 257, 333 Administration of voting by military per- sonnel, 68 Appropriations Act (1953), 367 (p. 1136) Civilian employees, increase, 18 (p. 71) Contracts, awards to small business, 15 Fissionable materials production pro- gram, 17 [1] Fund for purchase of industrial facilities, proposed, 367 (p. 1138) Management improvement program, 18 (pp. 115-116) Military functions, budget for, 231, 367 (pp. 1134,1135) Mobilization planning, 33, 276 Research and development program, 18 (p. 72), 367 (p. 1 137) Defense, Secretary of (Robert A. Lovett), 6, 27, 38, 48, 64 [9], 68, 79, 88 [4], 101, 124, 128, 155 n., 161, 228 [7], 233 [14], 292 [11], 320, 331 Denmark, endorsement of continued aid to, 217 Letter and memorandums, 96, 162, 387 Defense, Secretary of — Continued Resignation, 371 St. Lawrence Seaway project, support of, 23 Defense contracts Review by Renegotiation Board, 18 (p. 112) Small business, awards to, 15, 18 (pp. 79- 80) Defense Materials Procurement Agency, 18 (pp.78, 89, 115) Defense mobilization, 366 Defense Mobilization, Director (Henry H. Fowler), 245, 257, 341 Defense Mobilization, Director (John R. Steelman), 118 n., 161, 185-187 Defense Mobilization, Director (Charles E. Wilson), 6, 34, 58 Resignation, 70 St. Lawrence Seaway project, support of, 23 Successor, question of appointment, 75 [9], 88 [8], 123 [8] Defense Mobilization, Office of, 18 (p. 78), 22, 58, 245, 338 Fissionable materials production pro- gram, 17 [1] Steel dispute, mediation, 82 Defense Production Act, 18 (pp. 77, 80, 94, 116), 82, 136 [19], 148, 231, 305, 338, 359 [2], 36o> 367 (PP. II29> H41) Extension and strengthening, proposed, i5>33 Import restriction provisions, criticism of, 203 . Message to Congress, 33 Defense Production Act Amendments of 1952, 115 [10], 123 [18], 136 ftn. (p. 361), 148, 190 Defense Production Administration, 18 (pp. 79>"5) 1264 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Defense Production Administrator (Manly Fleischmann), resignation, 122 Defense Production Administrator (Henry H. Fowler), 122 Defense spending, 55, 98 [11], 101, 196, 268 [7], 272, 274 [5], 282 [4], 298 [8], 304, 322, 349, 366 Deficit spending, 15, 17 [2, 34], 18 (p. 63), 215,231,367 (p. 1 132), 368 Deflation, 123 [3, 18] De Lattre de Tassigny, Gen. Jean, death of, 7 [14] Delaware Campaign remarks, 303 [ 1 ] Candidates for public office, 303 [ 1 ] Gov. Elbert N. Carvel, 303 [ 1 ] Delaware River Port Authority, 209 Dell wo, Robert, 272, 274 [2] Democratic Action, Americans for, 129, 136 [7] . . Democratic National Committee, 26 [3, 28], 71, 88 [22], 115 [21], 127 [4, 16], 166 [13], 228 [12], 247 [4], 253 [3], 266 [ii]>3°3[9]>3°8[6] Chairmanship, question of change in, 334 Deficit, 342 [12] State chairmen, qualifications for, 342 [5] Democratic National Committee, Chairman (Frank E. McKinney), 2 [6], 7 [3], 28, 64 [2, 5, 10, 11, 16], 69, 71, 88 [15], 127 [4, 16], 136 [7] Democratic National Committee, Chairman (Stephen A. Mitchell), 342 [8], 377 [29] ^ Democratic National Convention, 98 [42], 123 [19], 149 [18], 175 [3], 197 [3] Attendance, the President's, 88 [18, 20], 98 [42], 127 [1, 6, 16], 156 [7] California delegates to, 136 [13] Humphrey, Sen. Hubert H., suggested appointment as keynoter, 88 [15] Democratic National Convention — Con. News conference remarks, 64 [10, 11, 13] Stevenson, Gov. Adlai E., nomination, 218, 318 Texas delegation, 197 [15] Voting plans, the President's, 197 [17] Democratic Party, 71, 129, 240 [1], 241 Administration records, custody and dis- position, 334 [11, 15] Campaign remarks on, 266 [1], 280 [3, 4], 281, 284 [5], 286 [3, 5, 6], 287, 288, 289 [2, 11, 12], 292 [3, 7, 9, 13], 294, 295 [2], 298 [5, 12], 303 [6], 306 [2, 7], 308 [4], 311 [1], 312, 314, 315 [5L 3l6> 3*7 U> 5> 7L 218, 321 [7], 322 Communism in, charges of, 69 "Dixiecrats," 129, 290, 306, 318 Election campaign, conduct of, 253 [14] Election prospects, 197 [19] Farm program, 267 "Favorite son" Presidential candidates, 26 [16] Stevenson, Gov. Adlai E., leadership, 334 [4] New York State Chairman, 359 [11] News conference remarks on, 123 [21], 377 t21] Nominees, President's influence on choice of, 197 [9] Pennsylvania, 26 [3] Platform, 98 [5, 18], 123 [7, 18], 127 [1, 16], 175 [15], 218, 221 [14], 230, 241, 242 [3], 247 [10], 266 [4, 5, 7, 9, 10], 267, 268 [4], 270 [5], 280 [1, 3], 282 [6], 284 [6], 285, 288, 289, 290, 295 [9], 298 [3, 9, 12, 14], 299, 303 [4> °L 3°4> 3°6 ih 2> 6, 7], 308 [8], 311 [2], 3^ [3]>3!5 U>6],3i7 [8], 319 [5], 321 [2] Pledge of future assistance to, the Presi- dent's, 377 [29] 1265 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Democratic Party — Continued Political philosophy, 129, 284 [6] Post-election plans, 342 [9] Record in office, 69, 129, 194, 195 [2, 3], 197 [16], 218, 233 [7], 240 [2], 241, 242 [1, 3], 266 [2-6, 11], 268 [3, 5, 7, 8], 269, 270 [1, 5, 7, 10], 271-273, 274 [2], 276-278, 280 [1, 3], 281, 282 [1, 6, 8], 285, 286 [1, 2, 5, 8], 288, 289 [1-3, 8], 290, 291, 292 [3, 5, 11, 12], 295 t6> 7> 9L 298 [h 6> 8> I2> X4L 3°3 [1, 2, 4, 9, 10], 305, 306 [4-6], 308 [2, 6, 8], 311 [3], 312, 313 [1, 6], 315 [h 3L 3J7 [i> 6> 7]> 3l8> 3X9 I>> 3. 5, 6], 321 [1, 3>5>7]>324 Reorganization, 342 [5] Southern candidates, prospects of nomina- tion and election, 98 [18] Denmark Assistance, 217 NATO contribution, 217 Soviet bloc, trade with, 217, 358 U.S. Ambassador Eugenie Anderson, 217, 313 l>] Dentists, shortage of, 367 (p. 1158) Denver, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [7] Depressions. See Economy, national Dermond, Philip, 286 [2] Deshler, Ohio, campaign remarks, 311 [2] Detroit, Mich. Campaign remarks, 317 [8], 318 Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., comments on campaign speech in, 319 [1], 320 Development Advisory Board, International, 20 Dever, Paul, 292 [9, 11, 12], 295 [7-9], 296, 298 Devils Lake, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [6] Dewey, Gov. Thomas E., 26 [21], 127 [17], 129, 143, 233 [15], 242 [1], 267, 268 [3], 283, 289 [8], 289 [10, 11], 295 [6], 298 [14], 303 [6], 304, 306 [1], 313 [4] 1266 Dil worth, Richardson, 49 [10] Dinosaur National Monument, Colo., 280 . [4] Dirksen, Sen. Everett McK., 21 [3], 283, 317 f2] DiSalle, Michael V., 15, 26 [31], 34, 286 [4- 6], 287, 311 [1,2], 319, 320, 345 [51,348 Disarmament, 5, 170, 196 Disarmament Commission, United Nations,, 196 Disasters, natural Droughts, 166 [10], 221 [1] Floods. See Floods, control and relief Relief, 18 (pp. 56-57), 50, 221 [1], 231 Disease prevention, 2 [3], 170, 249, 367 (p. 1157) Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 65, 288, 289 [7], 297, 301 Displaced Persons Commission, 65 Displaced persons in Europe, 78, 94, 145^ 164, 182, 244 Assistance, 65, 66 Immigration, 65 NATO forces, proposed enlistment in,. 65 U.S. Armed Forces, service in, 65 Distinguished Service Medal, 152, 157 Ridgway, Lt. Gen. Matthew B., 132 Souers, Rear Adm. Sidney W., 340 District of Columbia Campaign remarks, 308 [9], 330 Circumferential highway, proposed, 18" (P- 1*3) Commissioner F. Joseph Donohue, 308 n.,, 353 [16] Crime in, remarks by Gov. Stevenson,, 233U]>238[3] Decision to leave Washington, the Presi- dent's, 342 [17] Federal activities, dispersal, 18 (p. 113) Government, reorganization, 114 Home rule, proposed, 5, 114, 160 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] District of Columbia — Continued Library and museum services, Federal, 367 (p. 1155) Primary elections, question of, 44 [4], /75 [5,13] Racial discrimination, elimination, 303 [3>4]>353[i6] Recorder of Deeds, appointment author- ity^8 [27]3i56[I3]>l6° "Dixiecrats," 129, 290, 306 [2], 318 Dixon, Sherwood, 315 [6], 321 Dixon, Mrs. Sherwood, 315 n. Doctors, shortage of, 284 [5], 333, 367 (p. 1 158), 369 Dodd, Brig. Gen. Francis T., 127 ftn. (p. 337) Dodd, Thomas J., 292 [5, 7, 8], 293 Dodge, Joseph M., 331, 334 [7] Dollar. See Currencies Donahue, Repr. Harold D., 292 [10] Donaldson, Jesse M. See Postmaster Gen- eral, 214 Donnelly, Phil M., 156 [1], 284 [4, 5], 322 Donnelly, Walter J., 98 [40] Donohue, F. Joseph, 88 [8], 308 [9], 353 [16] Doolan, Edward F., 298 [2, 3] Doolittle, Lt. Gen. James H., 40, 155, 351 Dorrance Brooks Park, New York City, campaign remarks, 290 Doughton, Repr. Robert L., 2 [ 1 1 ], 213 Douglas, Repr. Helen G., 310 Douglas, Sen. Paul H., 3, 7 [10], 98 [24, 41] Dover, N.H., campaign remarks, 295 [3] Draft, 283, 295 [8], 307, 312 Deferment policy, 185-187 Doctors, 333 Reduction, question of, 313 [5] Drake, Henry, 286 [5, 6] Draper, William H., Jr., 55 n., 217 Drees, Willem, 21 [21 ] Drew, Dr. Charles, 169 Driscoll, Gov. Alfred E., 303 [6] Drucker, Joseph J., 35 ftn. (p. 155) Drug addicts, deportation, 182 Dulles, John Foster, 310, 353 [2] Duluth, Minn. Campaign remarks, 313 [6] Mayor George W. Johnson, 313 n. Duluth-Superior, harbor improvement, 367 (p. 1 143) Dunlap, John B., 35 [9] Dunsmuir, Calif., campaign remarks, 277 b] Durand, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [4] Durkin, Martin P., 342 ftn. (p. 1070) Early, Stephen T., 378 Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 246 Eban, Abba S., 144 Eckdall, Frank F., 236 n. Economic assistance, 15, 18 (p. 19), 55, 81, 101,144, 307, 315 [5], 322, 376 Asia, 5, 18 (p. 76), 55, 57 Austria, 55 Communist bloc, denial to nations export- ing strategic goods to, 358 Europe, 5, 15, 18 (p. 74), 27, 55, 295 [8], 298[8]>3I5[5]>3I7[2L354 Termination of, proposal by Secretary Sawyer, 353 [13] See also European recovery program; Marshall plan Expenditures for, 231, 367 (p. 1139) France, 358, 367 (p. 1140) India, 18 (p. j6), 367 (p. 1140) Italy, 358 Korea, 296, 310, 320, 321 [2] Latin America, 55, 367 (p. 1140) Less developed countries and new nations, 15. 57> 3^7 (P- ii39)> 376? 378 Middle East, 18 (p. 76) United Kingdom, 358 See also Mutual security program; Point 4 program 1267 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Economic Cooperation Act of 1948, 67 Economic Cooperation Administration, ter- mination, 18 (p. 115) Economic Stabilization Agency, 18 (pp. 80, 115), 20, 205, 342 [i5]>346>348 Economic Stabilization Agency, Administra- tor (Michael V. DiSalle), letter of ap- pointment, 348 Economic Stabilization Agency, Administra- tor (Roger L. Putnam), 118 n., 292 [9], 341 Letter, 346 Economy, national, 5, 13, 33, 55, 82, 98 [10, 12], 118, 123 [3, 18], 128, 147, 230, 237, 245, 266 [7, 11], 268 [4, 7], 272, 273, 274 [2, 5], 276, 277 [5], 280 [4], 303 I>L 3°4> 3<>6 UL 3J3 [5]. 3T5 [2, 4L 35i Campaign remarks, 284 [1, 4], 285, 295 [6, 7l 3°5> 3°7> 3*3 [6L 3^ 321 [i>3>6,7]>324 Census report, 363 Civilian sector, strength of, 292 [10], 294 Communist predictions of collapse, 215 Controls. See Controls, Government Council of Economic Advisers, divergent viewpoints on, 377 [16] Defense needs, adjustment to, 5, 15, 17 [13L 33. I0I> 2I5> 268 [7], 272, 282 [4], 283, 289 [8], 292 [10], 293, 294, 300,307,313 [6], 349, 366 Depressions and recessions, 126, 268 [7], 272, 274 [5], 289 [8], 292 [3, 9, 10], 293, 294, 298 [2], 306 [2, 7], 308 [3], 3i3[6L3*4 1920, 286 [2], 321 [3] 1921, 282 [4] 1928,296,306 [5] 1929, 69, 286 [5], 318, 321 [6], 376 1932, 266 [10], 276, 278, 281, 282 [4], 287,321 [2,3,4,6] Economy, national — Continued 1949,286 [2], 366 Preventive measures, 316, 318, 376 Electric power, effect on, 388 Free enterprise system, 69 Free world defense, role in, 319 [3] Goods and services, fair distribution, 376 Growth, 15, 17 [2], 18 (pp. 64, 79), 62, 289 [2, 3L 349> 355. 3^6, 376 Inflation. See Inflation Issue in election campaign, 268 [7], 300 Labor disputes, effect on, 341 Messages to Congress, 15, 215, 376 Mobilization planning, 349 National product, 292 [10] Oil strike, effect on, 58 Policy coordination, 376 Prosperity, 289 [1, 8], 292 [10], 293, 317 [i],3i8,3i9[i] St. Lawrence Seaway project, importance to, 23 Stabilization, 15, 17 [3], 190, 215, 231, 292 [9]. 34i» 345 [5]. 348, 367 (p.n4i),376 Agency appropriations, reduction, 205 Strategic and critical materials, effective use and conservation, 191, 192 Strength of, 215, 291 World War II, effect on, 293 See also Production Eden, Anthony, 6 Edison, Irving, 297 Education, 69, 215 Equal opportunity, 169, 378 Exchange programs, 234 Expenditures for, 376 Federal aid, 5, 17 [15], 18 (pp. 100-103), 218, 231, 281, 284 [5, 6], 313 [4], 333>367(PP-II55>u56) Subordination to defense needs, 15 Fellowships, scientific, 18 (p. 103) 1268 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Education — Continued Institutions, housing for, 18 (p. 99) Medical and dental, 15, 18 (p. 106), 249, 284[5],333.367(P-II58),369 Scholarship program, 17 [35] School-age population, increase, 18 (p. 100) U.S. programs abroad, 367 (p. 1144) Veterans, 18 (p. 108), 231, 366 Vocational. See Occupational training See also Colleges and universities; Schools; Students; Teachers Education, Office of, 18 (p. 102) Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., 55, 57, 79, 107 [2, 14], 129, 144, 250, 319 n., 335, 373, 378 Administration, transition to, 367 (p. 1 129) Boise, Idaho, campaign remarks, 233 [15], 3*9 U] Budget, Federal, criticism of, 166 [6] Cabinet meeting, invitation to attend, 227, 228 [3,7,12] "Crusade in Europe,'' 7 [10] Distinguished Service Medal, 152, 157 Educational aid (1949), support of Repub- lican stand on, 284 [6] Election victory, statement, 325 Endorsement of Senator Jenner, 247 [7] Health of, 115 [20] Korea Armed Forces, role in withdrawal of (i947-i949),3io,323 Peace efforts, 247 [9, 12] Visit to, 320, 321 [4], 345 [i,4]>353 [4] NATO command, 18 (p. 74) Resignation, 44 [9], 64 [9], 88 [4], 112 Successor, question of appointment, 88 [12,14,17] News conference remarks on, 64 [9], 115 1 20], 149 [13], 156 [2, 8], 166 [8], 175 [14], 221 [13] Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D. — Continued Presidential candidacy, 7 [2, 10, 13], 21 [28], 64 [9], 98 [7], 115 [20], 136 [8, 18], 175 [14], 221 [13], 227, 228 [3, 7, 12], 233 [7, 12, 15, 17], 241, 242 [1, 2, 4, 5], 247 [3, 9, 12], 253 [6, 8], 258 [1, 7], 266, 267, 268 [2, 4, 5, 8, 9], 269-272, 274-301, 303-308, 310-323 Railroad labor dispute (1946), role in, 253 l2> 4] Republican National Convention, views on, 197 [16] Republican presidential nomination, con- test with Sen. Taft for, 35 [8] Spain, opposition to NATO membership for, 31 [7] Taft-Hartley Act, support of, 175 [16] Truman administration, criticism of, 156 M Visit with the President, 149 [2, 6] See also President-elect Egypt, policy on, 6 Election campaign (1952), 29, 68, 69, 107 [15], 236 Comments on, 166 [8], 258 [16] Conduct of, 5, 233 [11], 240 [1], 253 [5, 14], 268 [5], 303 [5], 304, 306 [3], 312, 313 [4, 6], 322, 324, 325 Democratic nominees, President's influ- ence on choice of, 197 [9] Democratic prospects, 197 [19] Farm vote, 267 "Favorite son" Presidential candidates, 26 [16] Issues, 221 [15], 240 [1], 241, 242 [1, 2, 4], 258 [12], 266 [2, 3, 7, 8, 11], 268 [5, 7, 8], 270 [5], 273, 275, 276, 277 [3L 278, 279, 280 [6], 282 [7, 8], 283, 285, 286 [1] 287, 289 [2, 12], 292 [3], 295 [1, 3], 296, 298 [5, 9, 10, 13, 14], 299, 300, 303 [1, 3, 6, 55-672—66 -S3 I269 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Election campaign (1952) — Continued Issues — Continued 7, 9, 10], 304, 306 [1, 2, 5, 6], 307, 308 [2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9], 312, 313 [3-6], 3J5 [5L 3J7 [i]> 321 [*> 5> 7l> 322> 324 Airpower, 156 [8] Defense spending, 98 [11] Korean war, 64 [2], 299, 300 Republican evasion of, 289 [10], 291, 316, 317 [6, 7], 319 [4] Military men in politics, comments on, 377 [18] Participation, the President's, 31 [11, 12], 88 [18, 20, 22], 98 [42], 126, 127 [4, 16], 149 [20], 156 [7], 166 [13], 221 [12], 228 [6, 11], 233 [10], 238 [10, 13], 247 [4], 253 [3, ii. 15] Presidential candidates. See Candidates for public office Republican victory, 334 [13], 342 [18] Southern Democrats, prospects of, 98 [18] Taft, Sen. Robert A. See Taft, Sen. Robert A. Television coverage, adjustment of Presi- dent's itinerary to, 166 [13] Election campaign, major addresses July 2, Bull Shoals, Ark., 194 July 26, Chicago, 111., 218 September 1, Milwaukee, Wis., 241 September 29, Grand Forks, N. Dak., in- terview at, 267 September 30, Tiber Dam, Mont., 269 October 1 Spokane, Wash., 272 Broadcast on trade union radio pro- gram, 273 October 2 Seattle, Wash., 275 Tacoma, Wash., 276 October 4 San Francisco, Calif., 278 Election campaign, major addresses — Con. October 4 — Continued Oakland, Calif., 279 October 6, Provo, Utah, 281 October 7, Colorado Springs, Colo., 283 October 8, Shenandoah, Iowa, 285 October 9 Cleveland, Ohio, 287 Buffalo, N.Y., 288 October 10, Albany, N.Y., 289 October 11, New York City, 290, 291 October 16 Hartford, Conn., 293 Manchester, N.H., 294 October 17, Boston, Mass., 296 October 18 Providence, R.I., 299 New York, N.Y., 300 October 21 Philadelphia, Pa., 304 Pottsville, Pa., 305 October 22, Pittsburgh, Pa., 307 October 27, Gary, Ind., 312 October 28, Hibbing, Minn., 314 October 29, Chicago, 111., 316 October 30, Detroit, Mich., 318 October 31, Cincinnati, Ohio, 323 November 1, St. Louis, Mo., 322 November 3, Kansas City, Mo., 324 Election campaign, rear platform and other informal remarks July 1 and 2, Arkansas, 193, 195 September 1, Pennsylvania and Ohio, 240 September 2, Ohio and West Virginia, 242 September 29, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Montana, 266 September 30, Montana, 268 October 1, Montana and Idaho, 270 October 2, Washington and North Da- kota, 274 October 3, Oregon and California, 277 October 6, Utah and Colorado, 280 October 7, Colorado, 282 1270 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Election campaign, rear platform and other informal remarks — Continued October 8, Iowa and Missouri, 284 October 9, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsyl- vania, 286 October 10, New York, 289 October 16, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, 292 October 17, New Hampshire and Massa- chusetts, 295 October 18, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York, 298 October 21, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, 303 October 22, Pennsylvania, 306 October 23, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the District of Colum- bia, 308 October 27, Ohio and Indiana, 311 October 28, Minnesota, 313 October 29, Iowa and Illinois, 315 October 30, Michigan, 317 October 31, Ohio, 319 November 1, Indiana and Illinois, 321 Elections 1840, 289 [9] 1848, 289 [9] 1852, 289 [9], 238 [14], 287 1864, 289 [9] 1928, 296 1932, 69, 251, 296, 314 J934> 31 [11] 1936, 69, 78, 286 [6], 292 [12] 1940, 69, 286 [6] 1944, 68, 69, 286 [6] 1948, 7 [10], 69, 98 [31], 117, 126, 129, 143, 218, 221 [2], 230, 233 [2], 242 [6], 253 [5], 266 [2], 268 [3, 5], 269, 270 [8, 9], 272, 273, 274 [7], 277 [1, 2], 280 [1, 3], 281, 284 [2], 287, 289 [10], 290, 295 [2], 299, 303 l>L 3*7 t8L 3*8, 321 [7L 322 1950, 251, 308 [7] Elections — Continued 1952. See Election campaign (1952) Future campaigns, question of participa- tion by the President, 377 [29] Italy (1948), 288, 291 Primary. See Primary elections Television, role of, 26 [28] Electric Boat Division, General Dynamics Corp., Groton, Conn., 170 Electric Bond and Share Co., 143 Electric Consumers Conference, address, 143 Electric Cooperative Association, National Rural, message, 62 Electric power production, increase, 33, 271 Electrification, rural. See Rural areas Elizabeth, N.J. Mayor James T. Kirk, 303 [4] Remarks at, 303 [4] Elizabeth II, Queen, 30, 74, 342 [13] Ellender, Sen. Allen J., housing bill. See Taft-Ellender- Wagner housing bill El Paso Times, 197 [9] Ely, Lt. Gen. Paul, 88 ftn. (p. 258) Emergency Powers Continuation Act, pro- posed, 38, 68, 79 Emory, Alan S., 98 [32] Employee loyalty program, 76 Employees Compensation Appeals Board, 208 Employment, 5, 33, 98 [10], 266 [10], 272, 273, 276, 277 [5], 280 [3], 281, 298 ["L 312 Agricultural, 15 Defense industries, 15, 150 Disabled persons, 137, 243 Equal opportunity, 5, 18 (p. 94), 169, 336, Fair employment practices, 169, 290, 300, 3°3 [3l 3*6 Federal. See Government employees Full employment, 241, 289 [1], 292 [3], 294, 305, 307, 314, 317 [5], 319 [1], 321 [6], 376 55_^72^66h- -84 1271 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Employment — Continued Government. See Government employ- ees Increase, 15, 215, 289 [2], 293, 366, 368, 376, 378 Migrant Mexican, 21 [26], 31 [14], 367 (p.1151) Older persons, 18 (p. 104) Placement services, 18 (pp. 93, 94), 231, 367 (p. 1 150) Statistics collection, 18 (p. 92) Veterans, 137 Working conditions, 5 Employment Act of ^46, 376 Employment Service, U.S., 117 Engel, Irving, 7 [1] Engineers, Corps of, 18 (pp. 83, 88), 98 [34], 107 [61,231,367 (pp. 1 143, 1 146, 1149), 388 England King James I, 260 See also United Kingdom Engle, Repr. Clair, 199, 277 [4] Ephrata, Wash., remarks at, 274 [1] Equal opportunity, 194 Economic, 288 Employment, 5, 18 (p. 94), 169, 336, 378 Negroes, 169, 290, 353 [16] Erie, Pa., campaign remarks, 286 [8] Erlander, Tage, 98 [37] ESA. See Economic Stabilization Agency Espionage, Rosenberg case, 377 [10] Ethical standards, Government employees, i> 5> 7 [6, 9> u]> 11, i4> 2I [i9]» 26 [5L 36> 59> 69> "7> *43> 266 t2L 295 [8], 357 Morris investigation, 75 ftn. (p. 231) Ethiopia, troops in Korea, 196 Eureka, Mont., remarks at, 270 [6] Europe, Eastern Communism in, 182, 242 [2] Immigration to U.S., 182, 289 [7], 292 [5], 317 [7] Europe, Western, 297 Assistance, 242 [2], 313 [2], 366 Appropriations cuts, danger of, 205 Economic, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 74, 75), 27, 55> 295 [5]. 29^ [8], 315 [5]. 353 [13L 354> 367 (P- 1 140) Military, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 74, 75), 144, 158, 288, 295 [8], 298 [8], 367 (p. 1 140) Coal and steel community, proposed, 5, 55 Communism in, 288, 295 [8], 354 Defense, 217, 291 Economic and political stability, rela- tionship to, 15 European army, proposed, 158 German participation, negotiations for, 18 (P. 75) Military procurement by U.S., 367 (p. 1 140) Mutual defense assistance, 55 NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty Organization Discussions with President-elect on, 334 [14] Displaced persons. See Displaced persons in Europe Economy, 15, 18 (p. 75), 55 Balance of payments, 55 Campaign remarks, 281 Inflation, 5 Ewing, Oscar R., visit of, 334 [10] Immigration to U.S., 288 Industrial progress, mission to study, 257 Integration, military and economic, 358 Military strength, 18 (p. 75), 55 Political and economic integration, 55, 131, 366 Rearmament program, 55, 125 U.S. forces in, 57 U.S. policy in, 55 U.S. Special Representative (William H. Draper, Jr.), 217 1272 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Europe, Western — Continued War in, chances of, 156 [14] European Defense Community, 6, 55, 78, 151, 366 German progress toward acceptance of, statement, 343 European Economic Cooperation, Organiza- tion for, 55 European Payments Union, 55 European Recovery Act of 1948, 203 n. European recovery program, 55 Evans, Luther H., 347 Everett, Glenn, 233 [2] Everett, Wash., campaign remarks, 274 [5] Ewing, Capt. Charles G., letter on repatria- tion of Korean prisoners-of-war, 232 Ewing, Oscar R., 169, 234, 334 [10] Excess Profits Tax Act of 1950, 231 Excess profits taxes. See Taxes Exchange of teachers, 234 Excise taxes, 33 Executive agreements, 140 Executive branch Appointments, plans of President-elect, 334[i9].342[I°J11] Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Civil rights, measures to implement, 290 District of Columbia activities, dispersal in emergency, 18 (p. 113) Economic policy, coordination, 376 Financial management, 367 (p. 1161) Information Availability to Special Assistant to At- torney General, 35 [1], 36, 44 [10], m 64 [15] Privileged, 60, 64 [6], 76, 91, 182, 238 [2] Services, 335 Italy, consultations on aid to, 180 Joint accounting program, 18 (p. 116) Management improvement program, 1, 18 (pp. 115, 116), 367 (p. 1 132) Property and records management, 367 (pp. 1161-1162) Executive branch — Continued Real estate acquisitions in States, 18 (p. 114) Regulatory agencies, expenditures for, 367 (P-"3i) Reorganization, 1, 2 [4, 11], 5, 11, 18 (pp. 112, 115, 116), 53, 59, 84-87, 107 [6], 114, 115 [14], 117, 137, 287, 292 [11], 366, 367 (p. 1 132) Resignations among Presidential ap- pointees, 334 [12] Strategic and critical materials, conserva- tion efforts, 191, 192 Transfer of functions, discussions con- cerning, 233 [14], 326, 331, 334 [1, 7], 341, 342 [15], 366, 378 Executive Branch, Commission on Organi- zation. See Commission on the Or- ganization of the Executive Branch of the Government Executive orders, list, Appendix B, p. 1233 Executive privilege, 60, 64 [6], 76, 91, 182, 238 [2] Exeter, N.H., campaign remarks, 295 [5] Export-Import Bank of Washington, 18 (pp. 77 > 79) > 55> 367(P- 1 140) Exports, 215 Capital goods, 15 Controls, 18 (p. 79) Increase, 15 Natural gas to Canada, 377 [25] Raw materials, 55 Strategic materials, restrictions on ship- ment to Communist bloc, 105, 180, 217, 358 Fair Deal, 63, 129, 175 [5, 13], 194, 230, 27° [7L 272> 274 [2L 276, 278, 284 [1], 295 [3> 9], 296> 298 [h 2, 6, 9, 13, 14], 300> 3°3 [5], 3°4> 3°5> 3°°* [h 7L 3°7> 308 [1, 3], 311 [1], 313 [4, 6], 315 Ih3]>321 [3*6,7], 322 1273 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated Fair Employment Board, 169, 290 Fair Employment Practice Commission, pro- posed, 18 (p. 95), 98 [5], 123 [17], 290, m 3i7 [8] Fair employment practices. See Employ- ment Fair Labor Standards Act, 376 Fair Trade Practices Act, 197 [4] Fairchild, Thomas, 253 [10] Fairless, Benjamin, 116, 216 Fall River, Mass., campaign remarks, 298 [3] Famine Emergency Committee, National, 98 ftn. (p. 270), 377 ftn. (p. 1 196) Far East, communism in, 5 Fargo, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [2] Farley, James A., 7 [6], 359 [11] Farm Credit Administration, 18 (p. 92) Farm economy, 5, 33, 69, no, 126, 194, 215, 263, 266 [3, 4, 7, 9], 268 [2, 5], 271, 272, 274 [2, 4"], 276, 277 [5, 6], 281, 282 [4, 6, 8], 284 [1, 2, 4], 285, 289 [1, 2L 293, 300, 307, 312, 313 [1-4], 314, 3X5 [i> 4]> 321 > 322> 36o> 366> 388 Census report, 363 n. Credit, 18 (p. 92) Stabilization, 18 (pp. 91, 92) Farm Journal, The, 274 [4], 282 [4], 284 [1] Farm prices and income. See Farm econ- omy Farm programs Bipartisanship, 277 [6] Brannan plan, 17 [30], 285 Campaign remarks, 221 [15], 247 [10], 267, 285, 286 [5], 279 [6], 304, 311, 3*3 l>]> 3*4> 3*5 U> 5L 3l8> 32* [3> 7L 376 Family farms, assistance, 388 Farmers' Home Administration, 18 (p. 92), 231 Farmers' Union Central Exchange, Bill- ings, Mont., 58 n. Farrington, Joseph R., 149 [15] FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation Fechteler, Adm. William M., 128, 320 Federal aid to States Agricultural experiment stations, 367 (p. 1150) Aviation, 367 (p. 1144) Civil defense, 18 (pp. 96, 97, 99) Conservation of natural resources, 388 Drought relief, 221 [1] Education, 5, 15, 17 [15], 218, 231, 281, 284 [5, 6], 313 [4], 333 Employment services, 18 (p. 93), 231 Flood control, 97, 366, 388 Health and welfare, 249, 268 [8], 273, 284 [5], 306 [1], 333, 366, 367 (pp. ii57-ii58),369 Highways, 231, 277 [4], 367 (pp. 1143, 1144) Irrigation projects, 388 Labor programs, 367 (p. 1150) Occupational training, 367 (p. 1155) Public assistance, 5, 18 (pp. 105-106), 213,231,367 (p. 1156) Public health programs, 18 (p. 106) Unemployment compensation, 231 Federal Bureau of Investigation, 69, 75 [4], 117, 169, 251, 290, 296, 300, 303 [2] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director (J. Edgar Hoover), 26 [20], 75 [4], 296 Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, approval, 9 n. Federal Civil Defense Administration, 9, 18 (p. 99), 106 Federal Civil Defense Administrator (Mil- lard Caldwell), 9 Federal Communications Commission, 281, 367 (p. 1144) Appointments to, 49 [1, 15] 1274 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Federal Communications Commission — Continued Television stations, proposed halt to con- struction of, 26 [13] Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 143 Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 266 [3] Federal Employees' Compensation Act, 208 Federal Housing Administration, 18 (p. 98), 367 (p. 1 152) Federal Maritime Board, 18 (p. 82), 177 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 18 (p. 93), 22, 37, 58 Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Director (Cyrus S. Ching), 37, 341 Federal National Mortgage Association, 18 (p. 98), 367 (p. 1153) Federal Personnel Recruitment Act, 137 Federal Power Commission, 175 [7], 314 Nomination to, 26 [25] St. Lawrence Seaway, proceedings con- cerning, 23, 189 Federal Property and Administrative Serv- ices Act of 1949, 18 (p. 112), 367 (p. 1161) Federal Records Act of 1950, 149 [16] Federal Reserve System, Board of Gov- ernors, 15, 123 [18] Federal Security Administrator (Oscar R. Ewing), 169, 234, 334 [10] Federal Security Agency, 185 Federal-State-local governmental responsi- bilities Aviation safety, 40 Civil defense, 18 (p. 96), 106 Civil rights, 290 Community development, 18 (p. 96) Conservation and development of natural resources, 388 Disaster relief, 18 (p. 99) Highway improvement, 367 (pp. 1143- 1144) Labor standards, 18 (p. 94) Schools, 18 (p. 102) Federal Trade Commission, 88 [8], 197 [6, 13], 221 [n], 263, 282 [8] Federal Trade Commission, Chairman (James M. Meade), letter, 263 Federal Trade Commission Act, approval of fair-trade amendments, 204 Federal Water Power Act of 1920, 388 Fees for Government services, Budget Bu- reau study, 18 (p. 67) Feighan, Repr. Michael A., 287 Feinsinger, Nathan P., 22, 58 Ferguson, Sen. Homer, 129, 297 Figl, Leopold, 127 [14] Fillmore, Millard, 268 [41,282 [7], 289 Fillmore, Mrs. Millard, 249 Finletter, Thomas K. See Air Force, Secre- tary of the Finucane, Thomas G., 244, 373 Fiscal policy, 15, 17 [9, 13], 18 (p. 67), 215, 367(p.n6i),376 Fisher, Adrian S., 244, 373 Fitzpatrick, Paul, 21 [30^44 [6] Flanders, Sen. Ralph E., 3 Fleischmann, Manly, 122 Fletcher, Adm. Frank J., 142 Flint, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [5] Flood, Repr. Daniel J., 306 [2] Floods, control and relief, 3, 5, 17 [14, 19], 18 (pp. 88, 99, 100), 26 [23], 32, 50, 97, 98 [3> 9> 34L I0I> I09> "9> I27 [5L !94> 195 [1, 2], 231, 266 [6, 9], 268 [2], 270 [9, 10], 271, 277 [3], 292 [7], 313 [1], 366, 367 (pp. 1 146, 1 149), 376, 388 See also River and harbor development; Water resources development Florida, 290 Flying Enterprise, 29 n. Fogarty, Repr. John E., 298 [5], 299 Foley, Raymond M., 120 n. Folliard, Edward T., 75 [4], 98 [23, 29], 136 I>9]>i97 [6], 233 [15], 377 [6] Food For overseas relief, 5 1275 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Food — Continued India, 55, 57, 144 Production, 126 School lunch program, 18 (p. 105) Food and Agriculture Organization, United Nations, 51,55 Forand, Repr. Aime J., 299 Forbes, Russell, 7 ftn. (p. 19), 26 [ 1 ] "Forced Labor in the Soviet Union," 253 [1] Ford Motor Co., 175 [12] Foreign assistance, 275, 303 [2], 315 [5], 349, 366 Appropriations, 149 [20], 156 [12], 268 [51,281,295 [1], 307 Asia, 242 [2], 313 [2] China, 279 Denmark, 217 Europe, 242 [2], 295 [8], 313 [2], 366 Formosa, 366 France, 27 Germany, 354 Greece, 27, 81, 242 [2], 354, 366 India, 242 [2] Iran, 242 [2] Italy, 180,298 [8] Japan, 354 Korea, 242 [2], 296, 310 Netherlands, 105 Partisan opposition, 288 Refugees, 65, 66 Turkey, 27, 81, 242 [2], 354, 366 United Kingdom, 27 Yugoslavia, 27 See also Economic assistance; Military as- sistance and defense support; Mutual defense treaties; Mutual security pro- gram; Technical assistance Foreign ministers meeting, American Re- publics ( 1 951), 94 Foreign policy, 5, 18 (pp. 73-77), 26 [17], 63* x56 l>5L 26l> 29h 292 [4], 320 Assistance programs. See Foreign as- sistance Foreign policy — Continued Bipartisanship, 5, 34, 129, 228 [3], 283, 291, 292 [4], 319 [1], 320, 334 [1] Briefing of Presidential candidates and President-elect, 227, 334 [8] China (1945), 362 n. Collective security, principle of, 366 Communist expansion, defense against, 3*9 t6] Economic, 15, 20, 215 Eisenhower, Gen. D wight D., views on, 289 [4], 293 Europe, 55, 291, 317 [2] Germany, 288 Issues in election campaign, 69, 129, 218, 242 [2], 266 [8], 268 [5], 279, 283, 286 [8], 307, 320 Korea, 5, 279 Latin America, 94 Soviet Union, 318, 320 U.S. role of world leadership, 55, 57, 81, 130, 236, 255, 268 [9], 275, 277 [4], 295 [5> 8, 9l> 298 [8, 10], 303 [1, 4, 6], 3°4> 3°6 [7L 3I2> 3X3 [h 4> 5L 3*5 l>]> 3l6> 3*7 [2], 321 [2, 6, 7], 322> 335 World peace, administration efforts for, 5, 34, 42, 69, 88 [16], 98 [10], 101, 107 [2], 118, 123 [2], 125, 128, 129, 131, 144, 158, 170, 175 [9], 188, 196, 215, 218, 242 [2, 3], 247 [9, 12], 266 [8, 11], 280 [4], 281, 282 [2, 7, 8], 283, 288, 289 [4], 291, 292 [1, 4], 307, 3H> 3*5 [i]> 3*7 [6L 3**> 321 [3> 5L 324> 354> 358> 359 [6> I0> I2L 36$> ^ 378 Foreign relations, 351, 360 Allies, 315 [1, 2, 4, 7] Canada, 377 [25] Conduct of, 182 Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1138- 1141) Germany, 151, 258 [5] 1276 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Foreign relations — Continued Latin America, 377 [23] Foreign Service, 362 n. Forensic League, National, medal accept- ance, 173 Forests, national Conservation, 376 Highways, 18 (p. 84) Management and development, 18 (p. 89) Formosa (Taiwan), assistance, 18 (p. 76), 366,367 (p. 1 140) Forrestal, James, 310, 323 n. Fort Knox, Ky., gold reserves at, 98 [28] Fort Logan, Colo., disapproval of Veterans Administration facility at, 212 Fort Peck Dam, Mont., 268 [2] Foster, Wally C, 123 [12] 4-H Club, National Camp, 176 Fowler, Henry H., 122, 123 ftn. (p. 324) See also Defense Mobilization Director (Henry H. Fowler) Fox, Joseph A., 7 [7], 136 [19] Fox, Martin S., 303 [3] FTC. See Federal Trade Commission France Assistance, 18 (p. j6), 27, 358, 367 (pp. 1140, 1141) Auriol, Vincent, 99 Balance of payments, 15 Bonnet, Henri, 99 Defense effort in NATO, 358 De Lattre de Tassigny, Gen. Jean, 7 [14] Dollar exchange shortage, 18 (p. 75) Early investments in U.S., 218 Ely, Lt. Gen. Paul, 88 ftn. (p. 258) Exchange teachers, remarks, 234 Gifts for White House, acceptance, 99 Letourneau, Jean, 175 [4] Relations with Germany, conventions, 151 Strategic materials, export to Communist bloc, 358 World Wars, financial drain on, 218 Franco, Francisco, 31 [21] Frankfort, 111., mine explosion, 150 Frankfurter, Justice Felix, 161, 342 [6] Fraser, Willard, 266 [13], 268 [2-4, 8], 269 Free Trade Unions, International Confeder- ation of, 253 [1] Freeman, David, 173 n. Freeman, Orville L., 266 [1], 313, 314 French, Jack, interview with the President, 267 Frilot, George A., Ill, 43 n. Fruits, exemption from price control, 190 Fry, Celia, 173 n. Fuels, liquid synthetic, research, 18 (p. 89), 199 Fulbright, Sen. J. William, 31 [6] Full Employment Act, 268 [7], 289 [1], 294, 318 Fuller, Enoch D., 28 Fulton, Robert, 170 Fundraising campaigns Community Chest, 264 Red Cross, 50 Furcolo, Repr. Foster, 292 [9] Galassi, Margaret, 181 n. Galion, Ohio, campaign remarks, 286 [6] Gallager, Phil, 274 [2] Gallagher, Charles E., 98 [16] Gallup, George, 143 Gallup poll, 35 [8], 143 Galveston, Tex., harbor improvement, 367 (p. 1 143) Galvin, Michael J., 7 ftn. (p. 19), 26 [1] Garfield, James A., 127 [18], 136 [16], 282 [7], 289 Garrett, Ind., campaign remarks, 311 [3] Gary, Ind. Campaign remarks, 312 Mayor Peter Mandich, 312 Gas, natural, 289 [11] Gauss, Christian, 362 n. Gavin, Tom, 197 [17] 1277 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 229 Geelan, James P., 298 [8] General* Accounting Office, 86 General Electric Corp., 270 [8], 277 [2], 303 [10], 308 [3] General Foods Corp., 270 [8], 277 [2], 303 [10], 308 [3] General Motors Corp., 270 [8], 277 [2], 303 [10] General Services Administration, 18 (p. ii2),367(p. 1161) General Services Administrator (Jess Lar- son), 347, 387 Genet, Edmond C. E., 45 Geological Survey, 18 (p. 89) George, Sen. Walter F., 115 [21], 361 George C. Marshall Research Foundation, Inc., 387 George VI, King Death of, 30 Funeral, U.S. delegation to, 31 [ 19 J Georgetown University, 29 Gerber, Calif., campaign remarks, 277 [5] Germany Allied occupation, 151 Army, U.S. and German attitudes on re- building of, 197 [7] Assistance, 354 Communism in, 354 Confiscated property, disposition, 258 [5] Defense, 151 European defense, negotiations for par- ticipation, 18 (p. 75) European Defense Community, 342 [16], 343 Investments in U.S., 218 Mass deportations, 145 NATO membership, proposed, 5, 6, 158 Population growth, 65 Refugees, immigration to U.S., 65 Reunification, question of, 151 Soviet policy in, 151 State of war with, termination, 151 Germany — Continued Surrender (1945), 378 U.S. forces in, 345 [ 1 ] U.S. policy in, 151, 288 U.S. relations with, 151, 258 [5] War crimes, 292 [8] World wars, financial drain on, 218 Germany, East, refugees from, 65 Gerstenfeld, Rabbi Norman, 330 Gettysburg Address, 45 Gifts to the President, 99, 171 n., 260 Gillette, Sen. Guy M., 3 Girls Nation, American Legion, 220 Glacier National Park, Mont., 268 [9] Glade, Earl J., 280 [1, 3] Glasgow, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [2] Glasses, the President's, 123 [1 ] Glen Elder Dam, Kans., 18 (p. 88) Glenwood Springs, Colo., campaign remarks, 280 [6] GNP (gross national product). See Gross national product "Good neighbor" policy, 55, 92, 377 [23] Good Samaritan, 264 Gordy, Irving, 117 Gorrie, Jack O., 38 n., 355, 375 Gorski, Chester C, 288 n. Government Contract Compliance, Com- mittee on, 7 [1, 6], 18 (p. 94), 26 [1], 389 Government employees Annual leave, 108, 201 Civil Service System, anniversary state- ments, 14, 390 Comments on, 14, 69, 126, 266 [2], 281 Communists among, defense against, 296 Congressional committees, appearance be- fore, 49 [5, 7] Corruption among, Republican charges of, 69 Defense Department, increase, 18 (p. 71) Defense mobilization personnel, roster of, 338 1278 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Government employees — Continued Ethical standards, i, 5, 11, 14, 21 [19], 26 [5L 36> 59> 69, 117, 143, 266 [2], 295 [8], 357 Morris investigation, 75 ftns. (p. 231) Fair employment practices, 169, 290 Handicapped persons, 137, 243 Internal Revenue Bureau, proposed in- crease, 231 Loyalty, 26 [5, 24], 36, 69, 76, 117, 222, 223, 289 [2], 296, 303 [2, 5], 323, 353 l>> 14L 359 [3]? 362 n-> 377 l>4] Republican attacks on, 320 Merit system, 14, 390 Oath of office, 347 Occupational training, 18 (p. 112) Panama Canal, bill concerning compen- sation claims, 208 Patronage appointments, Republican, 317 [3] Pay, 1, 11, 18 (pp. 71, 113), 86 Personnel management, 18 (p. 112), 366, 367 (p. 1 162) Public criticism of, 117 Retirement system, 18 (pp. no, 113), 213, 367 (p. 1 163) Safety, 150 Security, 222, 223 Unemployment compensation, 18 (p. 113), 108, 137 Veterans, 137 Government Employees, American Federa- tion of, 390 Government services, Budget Bureau study of fees charged for, 18 (p. 67) Government spending, 147 Governments, State and local, financial operations, 215 Governor's Conference, National, 150 Grady, Henry F., 279 n. Grafton, W. Va., campaign remarks, 242 [4] Graham, Maj. Gen. Wallace H., 333 Grain, storage, 233 [2], 266 [5, 7], 267, 268 [2], 314 Granahan, Repr. William T., 304 Grand Central Station, New York City, campaign remarks, 289 [12] Grand Coulee Dam, 129 Grand Forks, N. Dak. Campaign remarks, 266 [3] Interview at, 267 Grand Junction, Colo., campaign remarks, 280 [4] Grand Rapids, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 l>] Grandview, Mo., 149 [19], 344 ftn. (p. 1059) Granger, Repr. Walter K., 21 [10], 280 [/, 3] Granite City, 111., campaign remarks, 321 [7] Grant, Ulysses S., 127 [18], 282 [7], 289, 295 [3] Gray, Carl R., Jr., 31 [3, 16], 135 Gray, Gordon, 203, 253 [7] Great Falls, N.H., medical fees in 19th century, 249 Greece Assistance, 81, 242 [2], 354, 366 Economic, 18 (p. 75), 27, 317 [2] Military, 18 (p. 75), 27, 55, 288, 317 Communist aggression in, 69, 107 [2], 3°3 [2L 354. 366> 378 Immigration to U.S., 182 Mass deportations in, 145 NATO Membership, 18 (p. 75), 77 Question of admittance to, 5, 8 Population growth, 65 Green, Sen. Theodore Francis, 3, 298 [5], 299 Green, William, death of, 336 Green, Repr. William J., Jr., 304 Greenfields irrigation district, Montana, 80 Greenland, U.S. bases in, 217 Gross, Repr. H. R., 334 [10] 55-672—66 -85 1279 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Gross national product (GNP), 15, 17 [3, 24 L 55. 274 [5], 282 [4], 292 [10], 313 [6], 321 [5], 349, 376 Groton, Conn., 170 Ground Observer Corps, "Operation Sky- watch,'' 202, 344 Grover, Wayne C, 347 GR-S, synthetic rubber, 12 Guay, John, 292 [13], 294 Gruenther, Gen. Alfred M., 112 Gulf Oil Corp., 58 Gullixson, Rev. Thaddeus F., 244, 373 Gundersen, Dr. Gunnar, 2 [3] Hagan, Douglas, 173 n. Hague, Rear Adm. W. McL., 349 n. Hailer, Frederick C, 296 Halleck, Repr. Charles A., 315 Hamburg, Iowa, campaign remarks, 284 [2] Hamilton, Alexander, 255 Hamilton, Brig. Gen. P. M., 310 Hamilton, Ohio, campaign remarks, 319 [6] Hamilton College, 289 [6] Hamtramck, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [7] Hand, Judge Learned B., 362 n. Handicapped persons Disabled veterans, automobiles for, 18 (p. no) Educational facilities, 367 (p. 1155) Employment, 137, 243 Old age and survivors insurance rights, 213 Public assistance, 367 (p. 1156) Welfare programs, 18 (p. 106), 293, 367 (p. "58) Hanlon, James, 306 n. Hannah, John A., 81 Harding, Warren G., 129, 267, 286 [6] Hardy, Repr. Porter, Jr., 177 Harlem, N.Y., campaign remarks, 290 Harpers Ferry, W. Va., campaign remarks, 308 [8] Harriman, W. Averell, 6, 21 [22], 27, 55, 65, 66, 6y, 105, 180, 203, 217, 279, 292 ["L 342 [5], 358 Dinner honoring, question of President's attendance, 44 [6], 88 [21] District of Columbia primary election vic- tory, 175 [5. 13] News conference remarks on, 98 [23, 31], 175 [8], 221 [7,9] Presidential candidacy, 98 [23, 31], 107 [4], 127 [8], 136 [16], 175 [5,8, 13] Harrington, Cornelius J., 35 ftn. (p. 155) Harris, Edward A., 26 [8] Harris, Franklin, 281 Harrison, Earl G., 244, 373 Harrison, William H., 282 [7], 289 Hart, Repr. Edward J., 303 [2] Hartford, Conn., campaign remarks, 293 Hartke, Rev. Gilbert V., 56 n. Hartley, Fred A., Jr., 298 [ 1 ], 314 Labor act. See Taft-Hartley Act Hartwell Reservoir, S.C., 18 (p. 88) Harwell, Coleman, 98 [10] Haslett, Dame Caroline, 188 Hassett, William D., 45 n. Hastings, Minn., campaign remarks, 313 [3] Haverhill, Mass., campaign remarks, 295 [7] Havre, Mont., campaign remarks, 266 [6], 268 [5] Hawaii Elective governorship, proposed, 35 [15] Statehood, proposed, 5, 35 [15], 49 [8], M9 [15] Hawley, Maj. Gen. Paul R., 135 n. Hay den, Martin S., 136 [19] Hayes, Rutherford B., 127 [18], 136 [17] Hays, Repr. Wayne L., 2 [6] Hay worth, Donald, 317 [3] Hay worth, Harold, 317 [5] Health insurance, 5, 237, 249 News conference remarks, 17 [28] 1280 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Health insurance — Continued Under social security, proposed, 258 [9, 15], 268 [8], 278, 284 [5], 369 Health Needs of the Nation, Commission on the, 2 [3], 5, 15, 249, 268 [8], 278, 284 [5L 333. 352> 353 UL 367 (P- I][58), 369 Health programs, 2 [3], 5, 18 (pp. 103, 106), 69, 215, 218, 278, 293, 352, 369 Children, 367 (p. 1157) Defense needs, adjustment to, 15 Disease prevention, 2 [3], 170, 249, 367 (p. H57) Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1156- 1159) Federal aid, 273, 306 [1], 333 Insurance. See Health insurance Issue in election campaign, 268 [8], 280 Maternal, 367 (p. 1157) Medical supplies, stockpiling for civil de- fense, 367 (p. 1 154) Military personnel, 333 Public health, 15, 18 (pp. 105, 106), 249, 333.3^7 (P-"57) Research, 333, 367 (p. 1157), 376 Special interest opposition to, 194 Veterans, 135, 333 See also Medical care Health Resources Advisory Committee, 249 Heart disease, 249, 268 [8], 333 Heinkel, Fred V., 32 Heller, Repr. Louis B., 298 [14], 300 Hells Canyon power project, 270 [9], 367 (p. 1 146) Helper, Utah, campaign remarks, 280 [3] Hennings, Sen. Thomas C, Jr., 3, 21 [17], 32> 98 [39] Henson, Harry F., 274 [4, 5] Herlong, Repr. A. S., Jr., Defense Produc- tion Act amendment, 33 Hernandez, Cpl. Rodolfo, Congressional Medal of Honor, 90 Herr, Harrington, 304 Herron, W. W., 88 [11] Hershey, Maj. Gen. Lewis B., 185, 187 Hibbing, Minn., campaign remarks, 314 Hickenlooper, Sen. Bourke B., 129, 297 Highway Safety Conference, President's, 93 Highways Accident prevention, 93, 243, 249 Circumferential, District of Columbia, proposed, 18 (p. 113) Federal aid, 5, 18 (p. 84), 231, 277 [4], 367(pp.ii43-ii44) Indian lands, 18 (p. 90) Interstate system, 18 (p. 84) Military facilities and defense plants, ac- cess roads, 18 (p. 84) National forest, 18 (p. 84) Tolls, use to finance other transportation facilities, 209 Hill, Vice Adm. Harry W., 142 Hill, Sen. Lister, 3, 127 [3] Hill, Oliver, 7 [1] Hill-Burton Act. See Hospital Survey and Construction Act Hillman, William, "Mr. President," 31 [5], 64 [4, 18] Hilton, Frank C, 29 Hinckley, Robert H., 203 n. History, Marxist interpretation of, 366 Hitler, Adolph, 261, 276, 279, 295 [8], 296 Hodges, George, 7 [10] Hoffman, Paul G., 278 Holding Company Act, Public Utility, 143 Holland. See Netherlands Hollis, Everett L., 7 ftn. (p. 19), 26 [1] Holmes, Horace, 57 Holum, Kenneth, 32 Home Owners' Loan Association, 278 Homer, A. B., 116 Hoover, Herbert, President, 26 [17], 96 [6], 107 [6], 284 [2], 285, 298 [2], 306 [7], 322, 366 Services to Nation following Presidential term, 377 [30] 1281 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Hoover, J. Edgar. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Director Hoover Commission. See Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government Hoover Dam, 277 [3] Hope, Repr. Clifford R., 32, 33 Hopi Indians, 46 Hopkins, John Jay, 171 Hopson, Howard C, 143 Home, Charles F., 40, 351 Horton, Mrs. John E., 156 [14] Hospital Survey and Construction Act, 268 [8] Hospital survey and construction program, 249, 268 [8] Hospitals and medical care facilities Construction, 15, 268 [8], 273, 284, 366, 367 (pp. 1156,1157), 376 Federal aid, 249, 268 [8], 273, 284 [5], 366, 369 Personnel shortage, 367 (p. 1158) Veterans, 18 (p. no), 135, 212, 367 (p. 1 160) Housing, 5, 18 (pp. 95-99), 69, 120, 215, 218, 296 Administration programs, Republican op- position, 218 Alaska, 18 (p. 99) Carver Village project, bombing of, 290 Census statistics on, 363 n. College housing loans, 367 (p. 1154) Construction, 15, 18 (p. 95), 215, 276, 366, 367 (pp. 1152-1155) Credit, 18 (pp. 97, 98), 120, 123 [18], 190 Defense, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 97, 102), 231, 367 (pp. 1152-1154) Demand for, 237 Educational institutions, 18 (p. 99) Equal opportunity, 169, 290 Expenditures for, 231, 369 (pp. 1152- 1154) Housing — Continued Farm, 126 Government programs, special interest op- position to, 194 Home ownership, increase, 376 Issue in election campaign, 278 Low income, 169, 241, 273, 278, 313 [4], 321 [2], 366, 367 (p. 1 153) Military personnel, 5 Private, 18 (p. 97), 366, 367 (p. 1154) Public, 18 (p. 98), 120, 169, 241, 276, 289 [3], 298 [14], 304, 366, 367 (pp. 1153-1154) Rent control. See Rent control Veterans, 18 (p. 98), 231, 366, 367 (p. 1 152) Housing Act of 1949, 120, 367 (p. 1154) Housing Conference, National, address, 120 Housing and Home Finance Administrator (Raymond M. Foley), 120 n. Housing and Home Finance Agency, 18 (p. 100), 221 [1] Houston, Tex., 197 [12] Howard University, 169, 367 (p. 1155) Howell, Repr. Charles R., 303 [6] Hudson, Henry, 74 Hudson, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [10] Hudson River, 74 Humphrey, Sen. Hubert H., 3, 7 [3], 115 [8], 204, 297, 313 [1, 4, 5, 6], 314 Democratic National Convention, sug- gested appointment as keynoter, 88 [15] Former Presidents, proposed Senate mem- bership for, 75 [8] Humphrey, Tom, 233 ftn. (p. 530) Hungary, mass deportations, 145 Hungry Horse, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [2] Hungry Horse Dam, Mont., 268 [5], 271, 388 Hunsaker, Dr. Jerome C, 40 1282 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Hutchison, Knox T., 126 n. Hydroelectric power projects. See Power projects Icarus, 125 Ice Harbor Lock and Dam, 18 (p. 88), 367 (p. 1 146) Ickes, Harold L., 146, 266 [10], 292 n. Idaho Campaign remarks, 270 [9, 10] Candidates for public office, 270 [9, 10] Floods, control and relief, 270 [9] Power projects, 270 [9], 367 (p. 1146) Illinois Campaign remarks 315 [5, 6], 316, 321 [3-7] Candidates for public office, 315 [6], 321 [3-7] Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., campaign remarks in, comment on, 317 [2] Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson, 21 [2, 3, 13], 49 [6], 75 [11], 88 [18], 97, 98 [4], 115 [3], 136 [8, 11, 18], 166 [16], 197 [12], 218, 221 [6, 12, 14], 224, 227, 228 [3, 7, 12], 230, 233 [4, 7, 11, 17], 238 [3, 8], 240, 241, 242 [1, 3-6], 247 [1], 253 [3, 8, 9, 11, 12], 258 [11, 12], 266, 268 [2-5, 7-9], 269, 270 [1, 5-10], 271-300, 303, 305- 308, 311-322, 324, 325, 334 [4], 342 [2, 8, 12, 18] Judiciary, Federal, vacancies, 35 [4, 7], 88 [8] National Guard, 290 Primary elections, 21 [12] Immigration and Nationality Act, 136 [5], 166 [15], 291, 292 [5], 289 [7], 297, 298 [14], 300, 301, 303 [4], 367 (pp. 1141, 1163), 373 Veto of proposed revision, 182 Immigration and Nationality Lawyers, As- sociation of, remarks, 350 Immigration and Naturalization, Presi- dent's Commission on, 244, 251, 364, 367 (p. 1 163), 373 Immigration and Naturalization Service, 18 (P- 94)> 367 (P- H63) Immigration to U.S., 136 [5], 350 Anti-foreign hysteria, history of, 288 Asian, 182 Displaced persons, 65, 94 Drug addicts, deportation, 182 Escapees, Communist bloc, 288 Europe, 182, 291, 317 [7] Greek, 182 Investigations and clearances, 367 (p. 1141) Issue in election campaign, 298 [9, 14], 300 Italian, 182 Laws, 65, 166 [15], 182, 244, 251, 288, 291, 292 [5], 297, 298 [9, 14], 299, 300, 307, 317 [7], 373 Migratory workers, 21 [26] Quota system, 182, 244, 288, 289, 299 Republican stand on, 288, 291, 292 [5], 301 Transportation facilities, 182 Turkish, 182 Impellitteri, Vincent R., 63 n., 290 n., 291 n. Imports, 215 Critical materials, 15 Dairy products, 359 [2, 14], 360 Defense materials, 33 Filberts, shelled, 302 Increase, 15 Iron ore, 175 ftn. (p. 432) Minerals, 15, 55, 57 NATO countries, 15 Natural gas from Canada, 377 [25] Petroleum products, 239 Raw materials, growth of, 192 Wool, 359 [15] 1283 Index [ Main references are to items Inaugural, 353 [15], 377 [6, 8, 15, 20] Income Business, unincorporated, 15 Corporate, 17 [24], 33 Government officials, 258 [13] Farm, 15, 289 [1, 2], 293, 367 (p. 1148) National, 17 [3, 24], 101, 266 [7], 268 [7], 274 [5], 368 Personal, 15, 17 [24], 33, 63, 69, 98 [10], 194, 215, 270 [7], 272, 273, 277 [5], 292 [9], 293, 305, 313 [5], 314, 315 [5]. 3i9 l>]> 32i [1, 5], 349. 366, 376, 378 Professional, 15 Income taxes, increased rates, 367 (p. 1132) Indemnity Act of 1951, Servicemen's, 367 (p. 1 160) Independence, Mo., 63, 149 [19], 170 Return to, the President's, 75 [7], 342 [i7]>377 [19] William Chrisman High School, 173 Independence Day, 197 [14] Independence of nations, 88, 366 Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 201 India Assistance, 205, 242 [2] Economic, 18 (p. 76), 367 (p. 1140) Technical, 57 Communism in, 144,303 [2] Ewing, Oscar R., visit of, 334 [10] Food supply, 5, 55, 57, 144 Korean prisoner-of-war camps, investiga- tion of uprising in, 162 Motion picture industry representatives, remarks, 256 Point 4 program in, 55, 57 Indian Affairs, Bureau of, 18 (p. 106) Indiana Campaign remarks, 286 [1-3], 311 [3], 312,321 [1,2] Candidates for public office, 107 [5], 286 [i-3]> 311* 3I2>321 [21 except as otherwise indicated ] Indiana — Continued Gov. Henry Schricker, 286 [1-3], 311 [3], 312,321 [2] Indianapolis, Ind., campaign remarks, 286 [1] Indianapolis Times, 319 [5] Indians Credit facilities for, 18 (p. 90) Hopi, 46 Lands, developmental programs for, 18 (p. 90), 231 Navajo, 46 Welfare programs, 18 (p. 106), 367 (p. 1158) Indochina, 18 (p. 76), 175 [4] Assistance, 5, 18 (p. 76), 27, 57, 367 (p. 1 140) Communist aggression in, 18 (p. 76), 49 [9]. 55> 345 U]? 367 (P- I][40) French High Commissioner, death of, 7 . [I4] Point 4 program in, 57 Indonesia Assistance, technical, 18 (p. 76) Korean prisoner-of-war camps, investiga- tion of uprising in, 162 Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 127 [>3]>349 Industrial Safety, President's Conference on, 150 Industry, U.S., 98 [10], 123 [2], 257, 271 Accident prevention, 18 (p. 92), 150, 243, 367 (pp. 1150,1151) Aluminum, plants affected by labor dis- pute, 22 Apprentices, draft deferment, 185 Atomic energy, plant expansion, 18 (P. 85) Capacity, 15, 18 (p. 79), 33, 215, 275 Defense Federal aid to, 18 (p. 77) Mediation of labor disputes, 18 (p. 92) 1284 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Industry, U.S. — Continued Defense — Continued Production, 18 (pp. 64, 68-70, 74, 77- 79), 158, 275, 367 (pp. 1 137, 1 138, 1141) Earnings in, average hourly, 215 Expansion, 339 Five-year censuses of, 367 (p. 1156) Inventories, manufacturers and distribu- tors, 15 Market development, 215 Mobilization planning, 349 New England, problems of, 294 Oil, refusal of companies to release books, 377 [26] Plant and equipment modernization, 15, 289 [2], 376 Production, 15, 57, 215, 289 [2], 376 Refugees, employment of, 65 Seizure, Presidential power of, 136 [9, 14, 17, 19], 156 [4], 161, 175 [16] South, growth in, 194 Steel strike, effect on, 175 [12] Wage Stabilization Board, industry mem- bers, 345 [5] Work stoppages, 15 Infant mortality, 249 Inflation, 83, no, 118, 215 Campaign remarks, 287, 293 Control program, 15, 17 [9], 18 (p. 79), 190, 205, 215, 341, 376 Europe, 5 Measures to combat, 5, 33 Military spending, danger from, 55 News conference remarks, 123 [3, 18] Post-World War II, 319 [1] Pressures from defense program, 15 Information Availability to Special Assistant to At- torney General, 35 [1], 44 [10], 64 [15] Briefing of Presidential candidates, 227 Information — Continued Churchill meeting, House Resolution on, 44 ih 13] Classified, respecting 1949 U.S. troop with- drawal from Korea, 320 Executive privilege, 60, 64 [6], 76, 91, 182, 238 [2] FTC report oh oil cartel, security classi- fication, 197 [13], 221 [n] Labor statistics, 18 (p. 95) Security, safeguarding of, 303 [2] U.S. programs abroad, 18 (p. 77), 54, 367 (p. 1 141) See also Voice of America Inland Waterways Corporation, 18 (p. 83) Institute of Inter- American Affairs, 18 (p. H5)>72 Institute of Pacific Relations, 362 n. Insurance Agricultural, 267, 367 (p. 1148) Bank deposits, 276 Disability, 5, 231 Firms, opposition to social security, 289 [3] Flood, 17 [14], 119 Health, 5 Marine, 17 [32] Mortgage, 18 (pp. 95, 96), 367 (pp. 1152, 1153) Old age and survivors, 15, 18 (pp. 70, 104, 105), 213, 215, 218, 237, 241, 266 [3], 276, 278, 293, 300, 306 [1], 312, 366, 367 (p. 1 157), 376 Railroad retirement, 270 [5] Unemployment. See Unemployment compensation Veterans, 18 (pp. 109, no), 367 (p. 1160) Trust funds, 18 (p. 100) War damage, 18 (p. 100) War risk, 17 [14, 32] Insurance Act of 1951, 18 (pp. 109, no) 1285 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Inter-Agency Committee, New York-New England, 294 Inter- American Affairs, Institute of, 18 (p. 115) Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assist- ance, 55, 196, 366, 378 Interdenominational Ministers Meeting, 290 Interest on national debt, 15, 18 (pp. 114, II5)323I?367(PP-Il63-Il64) Interior, Department of the, 98 [34] Mine safety, 19, 150, 206 Mineral resources development assistance, 18 (p. 77) Natural resources development functions, 388 Reorganization, 107 [6] Research programs, 199 Interior, Secretary of the (Oscar Chapman), 62, 78 n., 80, 199, 271, 280 [4, 6], 282 [7], 292 [11] Mine disaster, report on, 19 Resignation, 384 Internal Revenue, Bureau of, 35 [9], 127 [9], 238 [2], 266 [2] Collectorships, proposed civil service status, 11,59, II7 Investigation of, 31 [17] Reorganization, 1, 2 [4, 11, 13], 5, n, 18 (pp. 112, 116), 53, 59, 84, 117, 367 (p. 1161) Staff increase, proposed, 23 1 Internal Revenue, Commissioner of (John B.Dunlap),35[9] Internal Security Act of 1950, 182 International agreements (1952) Mutual defense treaties, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, Philippines, 95 Pakistan wheat loan document, 252 Peace treaty, Japan, 95, 1 1 1 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 6, 18 (p. 77), 55 International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, 253 [ 1 ] International Conference on Agricultural and Cooperative Credit, 261 International cooperation, 55, 72, 281, 283, 285>3°3 [i]> 3°7>32i l>L 366 International Council of Aluminum Work- ers of America, 22 International Development, Act for, 18 (p. 76), 20 International Development Advisory Board, 20 International Economic and Social Develop- ment, National Conference on, address, 81 International Federation of Business and Professional Women, 188 International Joint Commission, U.S.- Canada, 189, 367 (p. 1 147) International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 273 International Materials Conference, 190 International Refugee Organization, 65 International security, 18 (pp. 73-77) International Society of Christian Endeavor, remarks to, 168 International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, 37 International Wheat Agreement, 18 (p. 91), 367^.1148-1149) Interstate Commerce Commission, 123 [11], 367(^1144) Investments Bonds, savings, 15 Capital goods, 15, 215, 289 [2] Increase, 349 Private, deferment of nonessential types, 15 U.S. abroad, 18 (p. 77), 215, 367 (p. 1140) Iowa Campaign remarks, 284 [1, 2], 285, 315 [1-4] Candidates for public office, 284 [1, 2], 285,315 [1-4] Floods, control and relief, 97 1286 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Iowa — Continued Gov. William S. Beardsley, 97 Iran Assistance, 242 [2] Military, 144 Technical, 18 (p. 76), 55, 281 Communist aggression in, 69, 107 [2, 11, 14, 16] Discussions at meeting with President- elect, 334 [16] Jones, W. Alton, visit of, 238 [7] Oil dispute with U.K., 5, 6 Point 4 program in, 5 Soviet forces Ultimatum on (1946), 107 [2, 11, 14, 16] Withdrawal (1945), 378 U.N. policy in, 366 Iraq, assistance, 55 Iron Curtain. See Communist bloc Iron ore Imports, 175 ftn. (p. 432) Reserves, 18 (p. 88) Iron and Steel Institute, no Irrigation projects, 3, 21 [23], 80, 268 [2, 3, 7], 269, 271, 274 [1], 277 [3], 280 [6], 291, 307, 366, 388 Irving, Maj. Gen. Frederick A., 130, 131 Ismay, Lord, 6 Israel, 144 Ambassador Abba S. Eban, 144 Assistance Economic, 144 Technical, 18 (p. 76), 55 Kfar Truman, village of, 144 Weizmann, Chaim, 144, 297 Italy Assistance, 180, 298 [8], 358 Communism in, 69, 288 Elections (1948), 288, 291 Immigration to U.S., 182 NATO participation, 358 Population growth, 65 Italy — Continued Stevenson rehabilitation mission (1943), 289 [5], 291, 292 [1, 2], 317 [4] Strategic materials, export to Communist bloc, 358 Ives, Sen. Irving M., 221 [7] Jabara, Capt. James, 279, 319 [5] Jackson, Andrew, 136 [17], 282 [7], 289 Jackson, Repr. Henry M., 156 [10], 272, 274 l>5> 7L 274 [7]? 275> 276 Jackson, Justice Robert H., 161 James I, King, 260 Japan Assistance, 95, in, 354 Atomic bomb, use in war against, 366, 378 Communism in, 354 Economy, 55, 366 Information program in, transfer to State Department, 18 (p. 77) May Day riots in Tokyo, 115 [18] Mutual defense treaty, 95, in Peace treaty with, 5, 38, 79, in Statement upon signing, 95 Tongass National Forest, Alaska, logging operations in, 247 [11] U.S. Ambassador, question of appoint- ment, 26 [30] U.S. policy in, 288 Jay Treaty, 45 Jefferson, Thomas, 45, 131, 136 [17], 146, 174, 229 n. Education, views on, 284 [6] Lousiana Purchase, 107 [10] Jefferson City, Mo. Campaign remarks, 284 [6] Visit to, question of, 88 [20] Jefferson- Jackson Day dinner, 69, 88 [2] Jenner, Sen. William E., 280 [3], 283, 286 [8], 289 [3], 291, 292 [8], 296, 297, 298 [9, 10, 14], 300, 301, 303 [5], 304, 3I2> 3*3 UL 322 1287 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Jenner, Sen. William E. — Continued Endorsement by General Eisenhower, 247 [7] Jersey City, NJ. Campaign remarks, 303 [2] Mayor John V. Kenny, 303 [2] Jessel, George, 273 Jessup, Philip C, 289 [6], 290, 303 [5] Jewish National Fund, dinner remarks, 144 Jewish New Year, statement, 235 Jewish Welfare Board, National, 297 John Sevier steamplant, TVA, 367 (p. 1146) Johnson, Andrew, 107 [10] Johnson, Rev. Cliff R., 337 Johnson, Sen. Edwin C, 282 [6], 377 [12] Johnson, George, W., 313 n. Johnson, James William, Jr., 377 [22] Johnson, Louis A., 26 [19], 242 [3], 378 Johnson, Sen. Lyndon B., 175 [10], 238 [5], 3I0> 377 t12] Johnson, Mordecai, 169 Johnson, Ole C, 266 [3, 4, 7] Johnston, Eric A., 20, 21 [22], 203, 256 Johnston, W. Carl, 321 [6] Johnstown, Pa., campaign remarks, 306 [7] Joint Accounting Program, 86 Joint Chiefs of Staff, 128, 279, 310, 323 n., 345 C1] Korean military policy, views on, 320 News conference remarks on, 35 [8, 14] St. Lawrence Seaway project, support of, Vandenberg, Gen. Hoyt S., question of reappointment, 44 [3] Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chairman (Gen. Omar N. Bradley), 128, 130, 131, 320, 353 [5. 8], 377 [18], 378 Joint statements with Prime Minister Churchill, 6, 16 Jones, Alexander F., 98 [1, 2], 107 [2] Jones, Charles S. (Casey), no Jones, Mrs. Geraldine, 133 Jones, Cpl. Harvey D., 321 [4], 322 Jones, Jenkin L., 98 [17] Jones, John G., 277 [ 1 ] Jones, Lewis, 194 Jones, Repr. Robert E., Jr., 127 [3] Jones, W. Alton, 238 [7] Jones, Walter, 98 [7] Josef son, Nils S., 243 Joy, Vice Adm. Charles T., 131 Judiciary, Federal Vacancies, 35 [4, 7], 44 [5], 88 [8, 11], 166 [4] Judson, Richard, 289 [1] Juliana, Queen, 31 [4] Visit of, 73, 74, yy, 78 "Jungle Book," Rudyard Kipling, 218 Justice, Department of, 60, 136 [9], 169, 181 n., 296 Alien control functions, 367 (p. n 63) Chicago newsman, prosecution, 342 [3] Civil rights functions, 290 Investigations of, 26 [24], 91, 247 [5] McCarthy, Sen. Joseph R., investigation, 377 04] Questionnaire, distribution to employees, 75 ftn. (p. 231) Reorganization, 87, 137 Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 22 Kalispell, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [4] Kane, John J., 240 n., 307 Kangaroo, gift for the President, 149 [7] Kansas Floods, control and relief, 18 (p. 88), 32, 50, 109, 119 High school students, remarks, 236 Kansas City, Mo., 29, 63, 170, 197 [17] Campaign remarks, 324 Kansas City Power and Light Co., 143 Kansas City (Mo.) Star, 284 [4], 292 [12] Katyn Forest massacre, 312, 317 [7] 1288 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Kaufman, Judge I. R., 377 ftn. (p. 1192) Keegan, Frank A., 303 [9] Kefauver, Sen. Estes, 2 [9, 18], 3, 49 [11], 175 ftn. (p. 432) Government, charges of corruption in, 21 [19] News conference remarks on, 21 [3, 12, i5> *7> 32L 98 [42] Presidential candidacy, 21 [4, 15, 17, 32], 26[7],88[i8],98[24,4i],i36[ii], 156 [3] Keleher, Thomas J., 284 [1,2], 285 Kelley, Nicholas, 117 n. Kelly, Edna F., 298 n., 300 Kelly, Walter A., 320 Kem, Sen. James P., 21 [17], 26 [9], 266 [13], 280 [3], 312 Kennecott Copper Corp., 37 Kennedy, Repr. John F., 292 [9-12], 295 [7-9], 296, 298 [1-3] Kennon, Gov. Robert F., 315 [6], 316 Kenny, Mayor John V., 303 [2] Kent, Wash., campaign remarks, 274 [7] Kentucky Droughts, 221 [1] Floods, control and relief, 50 Gov. Lawrence W. Wetherby, 221 [1] Keogh, Repr. Eugene J., 300 Kerr, Sen. Robert S., 3 Kessler, Dr. Henry H., 135, 243 Key West, Fla. News conference at, 64 [7] Visit to, question of, 49 [14] Keyser, W. Va., remarks at, 242 [5] "Kid of the Year" award, remarks to win- ner, 154 Kilburn, Repr. Clarence E., 115 [10] Kilgore, Sen. Harley M., 242 [3-6], 308 Kimball, Dan A., 170, 171 King, Repr. Cecil R., 2 [13] Kingston steamplant, TV A, 367 (p. 1 146) Kinneman, John A., 321 [3] Kipling, Rudyard, "Jungle Book," 218 Kirk, James T., 303 [4] Kirwan, Repr. Michael J., 269 n. Kitty Hawk, N.C., 125, 328 Klamath Falls, Oreg., campaign remarks, 277 M Klein, Repr. Arthur G., 298 [13, 14] Kline, Allan B., 203 n. Kniffen, Luther M., 306 [2] Knight, Frank A., 98 [20] Knowland, Sen. William F., 156 [15] Know-Nothing Party, 288 Knox, Frank, 289 [5] Kohler, Gov. Walter J., Jr., 97 Koje, Korea, uprising in prisoner-of-war camps, 127 [12], 162, 163, 166 [3] Korea Airlift to, 18 (p. 83) Armed forces, 12, 107 [2], 131, 283, 295 [8], 299, 320, 321 [4], 322 Assistance, 242 [2], 310 Economic, 296, 310, 320, 321 [2] Military, 295 [8], 307, 310, 315 [5], 320, 354 Communism in. See Communist aggres- sion and expansion Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., visit to, 354 [4], 316, 320, 321 [4], 345 [4] Elections (1947), 310, 323 Koje, uprising in prisoner-of-war camps, 127 [12], 162, 163, 166 [3] Red Cross services in, 50 Rhee, Syngman, 156 [11], 166 [11] U.S. Ambassador John J. Muccio, 299 Visit to, question of, 49 [18], 345 [2, 4] Korea, North Attack on South Korea, 5, 12 Communism in, 232 Korean war, 29, 35 [10], 69, 81, 288, 315 [1], 318 Air supremacy, U.S., 158 1289 Index [ Main references are to items Korean war — Continued Armistice or cease-fire negotiations, 5, 35 123 [20], 127 [11], 131, 132, 136 [6], 149 [8], 232 n., 238 [9, 11, 15], 345 [*> 2, 4], 354, 359 [17] Atomic weapons, question of use, 166 [12] Campaign remarks, 283, 316, 317 [1, 2], 3J9 [1, 3> 5l> 320> 321 U> 5> 7l> 322 Casualties, 249 Chinese Communist intervention, 6, 12 Clark, Gen. Mark W., appointment to U.N. command, 113 Congressional hearings on, 345 [1] Economic effects of, 292 [9], 294, 319 [1], 376 Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., views on, 247 [9, 12], 289, 293, 318 Ethiopian troops in, 196 Expansion, administration opposition to, 3i6> 345 [1] Expenditures for, 231, 367 (p. 1130), 368 Hoarding by consumers at outbreak, 287 Issue in election campaign, 64 [2], 299, 300 Legal status, 127 [10] Lowe, Maj. Gen. Frank E., interception of cables from, 26 [4] MacArthur, Gen. Douglas, views on, 345 [1], 359 [8] News conference remarks, 2 [15], 149 [10], 345 [1], 353 [8] "Police action" designation, comment on, 334 [9] Prisoners. See Prisoners of war, Korean Republican stand on, campaign remarks, 316 Ridgway, Lt. Gen. Matthew B., armistice proposal, 121, 123 [20] Steel strike, effect on, 103 except as otherwise indicated ] Korean war — Continued U.N. operations in, 5, 6, 12, 121, 131, 132, 166 [9], 196, 232, 259, 299, 321 [4], 366 U.S. forces in, 18 (p. 69), 56, 57, 107 [2], 128, 131, 135, 139, 172, 268 [5], 356, 378 Medical facilities for, 135, 333 Withdrawal, 295 [8], 299, 300, 310, 321 [4], 322 1947, 323 1948-1949, 316, 319 [1], 320 U.S. policy in, 5, 145, 266 [2], 272, 279, 310, 349, 366 Veterans benefits, 18 (p. 109), 135, 367 (p. 1 160) Wedemeyer, Lt. Gen. Albert C, report of, 316 White House conference with President- elect and Gen. MacArthur, proposed, 345 [1] Krehel, Peter, 305 Kroll, Jack, 230 n. Kronheim, Milton S., Sr., 144 Kruppenbacher, Victor, 289 [2] Ku Klux Klan, 169, 290 Kuznets, Simon, 305 Labor, 18 (pp. 92-95), 98 [10], 237, 268 [5]? 306 [2] Administration program, 218, 367 (pp. 1150-1152) Agricultural Draft deferment, 185-187 Manpower needs, 15, 18 (p. 94), 186, 187 Closed shop, no Coal miners, 341 Collective bargaining, 88 [3, 5], 148, 161, 215, 237, 289 [1], 292 [5], 304, 308 [*]>3*7 [5J.341.376 1290 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Labor — Continued Fair standards laws, Republican opposi- tion, 218 Industrial, draft deferment, 185 Growth in labor force, 215 Legislation, 237, 242 [5], 266 [3], 315 [1L318 Mediation and conciliation services, 88 [3] Migrant Mexican, 2 [5], 18 (p. 94-95), 31 [mLs^Cpp-1^0-1^) Educational aid for children of, 18 (p. 102) Productivity, 215 Recruitment and training, 18 (p. 92) Relations with management, 15, 215, 237, Legislation, proposed, 215 Republican stand on, 286 [8] Rights of, 281, 306 [6] Soviet Union, forced, 253 [1] Standards, 18 (p. 94), 237, 376 Statistics collection, 18 Taft-Hartley Act. See Taft-Hartley Act Trade union movement, 251, 291, 292 [13], 308 [11,317,336 Union shop, 88 [7], no, 166 [5], 270 [5] Work stoppages, 215 Labor, American Federation of, 336 Labor, Department of, 150, 185 Child labor law enforcement, 18 (p. 95) Defense production activities, 18 (pp. 92- 94) Industrial safety training program, 367 (p.1151) Manpower mobilization activities, 18 (pp. 92-94) Mexican migrant workers, negotiations concerning, 2 [5] Placement services, 18 (p. 92) State labor programs, cooperation with, 367 (p. 1 150) Labor, Secretary of (Maurice J. Tobin), 148, 150 Campaign remarks on, 292 [n] Resignation, 386 Labor contracts Coal miners, 342 [7] Steelworkers, 82 Labor Day Address, 241 Statement, 237 Labor disputes, 263 Aluminum industry, 22 Coal industry, 341, 342 [7] Copper industry, 37 Defense industries, mediation, 18 (p. 92) Mediation and conciliation services, 136 [201,148 Legislation, question of need for, 156 [5] Metals industry, nonferrous, 37 Oil industry, 58, 123 [6] Railroads, 136 [2, 14] i946>253t2>4l Steel industry, 64 [14], 70, 75 [10], 82, 83> 88 [3> 5l> 98 [J4> 25l> I07 l2> I21> no, 115 [1, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19], 116, 123 [2, 4], 129, 136 [3], 156 [4], 159, 161, 166 [1, 5, 7], 175 [12, 16], 197 [2], 215, 231, 233 [5], 242 [5] Address to American people, question of, 115 [10] Government seizure, 156 [4], 175 [16] Injunction, question of use, 37, 115 [12] Settlement, 216 Wage Stabilization Board, mediation functions, 190 Labor-Management Relations Act. See Taft-Hartley Act Labor organizations, 37, 69, 237, 308 [1], 312, 322 American Federation of Government Employees, 390 1291 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Labor organizations — Continued American Federation of Labor, 22, 37, 58, 286 [8], 336 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Congress of Industrial Organizations, 22, 58, 216, 230 Agreement with, the President's al- leged, 88 [9] International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, 253 [1] International Council of Aluminum Workers of America, 22 International Ladies Garment Workers Union, 273 International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, 37 Oil Workers International Union, 58 Order of Railway Conductors, 136 ftn. (P- 359) United Mine Workers of America, 341 United Steel workers of America, 22, 116 n., 118 n., 216 . Labor Relations Board, National, 18 (p. 93)> 35 [11] Labor Statistics, Bureau of, 18 (p. 95) Labrador, iron ore deposits, 175 ftn. (p. 433) Lackey, E. Dent, 228 n. LaFollette, Robert M., 241, 277 [1], 308 [1], 312 LaFollette, Robert M., Jr., 241 Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, 367 (p. 1146) Lakota, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [5] Land, Frank, 45 Land Management, Bureau of, 18 (p. 89) Land resources development, 231, 367 (pp. 1146,1147), 388 Agricultural, 367 (pp. 1148-1150) Landon, Alfred M., 289 [8], 292 [12], 295 [6] Lands, public. See Public lands Lane, Repr. Thomas J., 295 [8] Langer, Sen. William, 3, 266 [2, 3], 266 [6], 266 [9-1 1], 277 [1] Lansing, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [3] Laos, 18 (p. 76) Larrimore, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [4] Larsen, Lt. Gen. Henry, 353 [3] Larson, Jess, 347 Latin America Assistance, 18 (pp. 76, 77), 55, 72, 367 (p. 1 140) Foreign Ministers, Council of, 94 "Good neighbor" policy, 94 Point 4 program in, 55 Refugees, immigration to, 65 U.S. investments in, 18 (pp. 76, 77) U.S. relations with, 94, 377 [23] Lattimore, Owen, 197 [10] Laughtenhauser, Dr. J., 135 Lausche, Gov. Frank J., 253 [8], 286 [4, 6], 287, 311 [1, 2], 319 [1-6], 320 Law, Arthur, 317(6] Lawrence, David L., 7 [ 1 1 ], 307 Lawrence, James E., 32, 269 Lawrence, Mass., campaign remarks, 295 [8] Lawrence, William L., 7 [10] Lawton, Frederick J. See Budget, Bureau of the, Director Leach, Paul, 98 [41, 42] League of Nations, 196, 378 Leahy, Fleet Adm. William D., 142, 335 Lebanon, technical assistance, 55 Lee, M. Sgt. Hubert L., Congressional Medal of Honor, 24 Lefever, Gregory, 173 n. Legislation, statements upon approval Agricultural price supports, 210 Coal mine safety, 206 1292 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Legislation, statements upon approval — Con. Defense Production Act, 1952 amend- ments, 190 Delaware River Port Authority, 209 Fair-trade amendments to Federal Trade Commission Act, 204 House of Representatives, pay of Members, 207 Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 201 Japan, peace treaty with, 95 Merchant Marine Act of 1936, amend- ment, 211 Puerto Rico, resolution approving consti- tution of, 198 Recorder of Deeds, District of Columbia, 160 Social Security Act amendments of 1952, 213 Supplemental Appropriation Act, 205 Veterans benefits, 138 Water desalination research, 199 Legislative program, 218 Civil rights, 290 Economic, 15 Labor-management relations, 15 Republican opposition. See Republican Party Special interests, opposition to, 62, 97, 277 [1], 278, 280 [6], 282 [4], 284 [4], 287, 295 [2, 9], 298 [5], 305, 306 [2, 5-7], 314, 322 Taft, Sen. Robert A., comment on, 359 [9] Lehman, Sen. Herbert H., 3, 88, 89 [1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11], 290, 291, 297, 298 [13, 14], 300 Lehman, Orin, 203 n. Lenin, Nikolai, 366 Leonard, Colvin T., 98 [13] Less developed countries and new nations, assistance, 15, 20, 57, 101, 367 (p. 1139), 376, 378 Less developed countries and new nations, assistance — Continued See also Point 4 program; specific coun- tries Letourneau, Jean (French Minister of State), 175 [4] Letters, etc., to Federal agencies or officials. See Memorandums, etc., to Federal agencies or officials Leviero, Anthony H., 98 [22, 37], 156 [2], 345 [i]>377[8] Leviticus, Book of, 347 Libby Dam, Idaho, 270 [9] Libby, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [7] Liberia Assistance, 55 Iron ore deposits, 175 ftn. (p. 433) Point 4 program in, 5 Liberty Bell, 347 Librarian of Congress (Luther H. Evans), 347 Libraries, Presidential, 334 ftn. (p. 1059) Library of Congress, 174, 347 Life expectancy, 249, 333 Life magazine, 143 Limon, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [6] Lincoln, Abraham, 45, 107 [10], 136 [17], 143, 149 [16], 272, 282 [7], 303 [4], 316, 318, 321 [3, 6] Lincoln, Murray D., 143 Lippmann, Walter, 64 [9], 295 [5], 304 Lisbon, NATO meeting, 48, 49 [17], 55, 57 Litchfield, 111., campaign remarks, 321 [6] Litchfield (111.) News-Herald, 321 [6] Literary Digest poll (1948), 129 Little Missouri River, 367 (p. 1146) Livestock, 15, 33 Lloyd, David D., 26 [20] "Locksley Hall," Alfred Lord Tennyson, 125 1293 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Locomotive Engineers, Brotherhood of, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Lodge Act of 1950, 65 Lodge, Sen. Henry Cabot, Jr., 331 Lodge, Gov. John D., 170, 310 Loeb, William, 35 [5] Lohrey, Louis, 319 n. London Symphony Orchestra, 262 Long-Range Shipping bill, amendment to Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 211, 225 Los Angeles, Calif., 233 [13] Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., comments on campaign remarks in, 291, 292 [12] Mayor Fletcher Bowron, 233 [13] Los Angeles Times, 233 [13] Louisiana Gov. Robert M. Kennon, 315 [6], 316 Offshore lands, public ownership of, 146 Louisiana Purchase, 107 [10] Loveless, Herschel C, 284 [1, 2], 285, 315 [1-4] Lowe, Maj. Gen. Frank E., 26 ftn. (p. 131) Cables from, report of interception, 26 [4] Lowell, Mass., campaign remarks, 292 [12] Loyalty, Government employees, 26 [5, 24], 36, 69, y6, 117, 222, 223, 289 [2], 296, 3°3 l>, 5L 323> 353 O, 14], 359 [3L 362 n. Loyalty Review Board, 26 [5, 20], 76, 362 n. Loyalty Review Board, Chairman (Hiram Bingham), 362 n. Lucas, Scott W., 166 [16] Luce, Claire Boothe, 143 Luce, Henry R., 143 n. Lyford, Joseph P., 298 [9-1 1] Lyon, A. E., 203 n. MacArthur, Gen. Douglas A., 157, 270 [8], 277 [2], 289, 303 [10], 305, 310 Dulles, John Foster, meeting with, 353 [2] Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., meeting witn> 353 !>] MacArthur, Gen. Douglas A. — Continued Korea, role in withdrawal of U.S. forces, 320 Korean war, comment on, 359 [8] News conference, remarks on, 49 [6], 334 [15], 345 [1] 353 [5] Relief from command, hearings on, 362 n. Republican National Convention, appoint- ment as keynoter, 166 [2, 17], 175 White House conference, proposed invita- tion, 345 [1] Machrowitz, Repr. Thaddeus M., 317 [7] Mack, Repr. Peter F., 321 [5] Mack, Repr. Russell V., 342 [1] Madden, Repr. Ray J., 312 Madison, James, 276 Magazines, postal rates, 367 (p. 1144) Magee, Repr. Clare, 3 Magellan, Ferdinand, Presidential railroad car, 377 [19] Magnuson, Don, 272, 274 [1-5, 7], 275, 276 Magnuson, Paul B., 2 [3], 135 n. Magnuson, Mrs. Paul B., 262 Magnuson, Sen. Warren G., 272, 274 [1, 4], 276 Mahoney, George F., 308 [7] Malaya Communist aggression in, 55 Military assistance, 5 Maiden, Mass., campaign remarks, 295 [9] Malone, Richard T., 313 [3] Maloney, Francis T., 292 [3] Maloney, Mrs. Francis T., 292 n. Malta, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [1] Malta, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [3] Management, Advisory Committee on, 18 (P- 115) Management improvement program, Fed- eral, 1, 18 (pp. 65, 115, 116) Manchester, N.H., campaign remarks, 294 Mandich, Peter, 312 Mankin, Jack H., 321 [2] 1294 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Manpower resources Conservation and development, 15, 18 (pp. 92, 94, 102), 367 (p. 1 150) Defense mobilization personnel, roster of, 338 Waste due to educational deficiencies, 18 (p. 101) Mansfield, Repr. Mike, 266 [13], 268, 269, 27° [h 5> 7> 8L 271 Manufacturers, census of, 363 n. Manufacturers, National Association of, 294, 306 [2], 314, 319 [1], 321 [2] Marciano, Rocky, 298 [1] Marine Corps, 18 (p. 69), 131, 158, 367 (p. 1 134) Marion, Ohio, campaign remarks, 286 [5] Maritime Administration, 18 (p. 82), 367 (p. 1 142) Maritime Board, Federal, 18 (p. 82), 177 Maritime industry, tax benefits, 211, 225, 226 Markel, Lester, 98 [6] Marland, William C, 308 [8] Marsalis, John H., 282 [3, 4], 283 n. Marshall, Gen. George C, 107 [2], 135, 279, 283, 286 n., 289 [6], 290 n., 291, 293, 296> 3°3 [4. 5L 308 [4], 3I0> 3*3 M, 316, 320, 322 Marshall, George C, Research Foundation, Inc., 387 Marshall plan, 55, 69, 81, 203, 218, 281, 283, 289 [5], 291, 298 [8], 303 [2], 304, 317 [2], 366, 378 Martin, Repr. Joseph W., Jr., 312, 377 [15] Martinsburg, W. Va., campaign remarks, 242 [6] Marx, Karl, interpretation of history, 366 Maryland Campaign remarks, 308 [7] Records, Hall of, 174 n. Senatorial election (1950), 69, 308 [7] Masaryk, Thomas G., 309 Mason, Repr. Noah M., 285 Masonic order, breakfast, 45 Massachusetts Attorney General, campaign proposal for Presidential visit to Korea, 345 [2] Campaign remarks, 292 [9-12], 295 [7- 9], 296, 298 Candidates for public office, 292 [9-12], 295 [7-9L 296> 298 [J-3] Gov. Paul A. Dever, 295 [7, 9], 296, 298 [1-3] Masselink, Mara Gay, 43 n. Materials Conference, International, 190 Materials Policy Commission, 15, 179, 191, 192, 203, 355 Maverick, Maury, 175 [17], 197 [15] Maybank, Sen. Burnet R., 31 [6], 108, 120, 159, 190 McCardle, Carl, 98 [24, 38] McCarthy, Repr. Eugene J., 313 [4], 314 McCarthy, Sen. Joseph R., 129, 170, 266 [13], 280 [3], 283, 286 [8], 289 [3, 6], 291, 292 [8], 293, 296, 297, 298 [9, 10, 14], 300, 301, 303 [5], 304, 308 [7], 312, 313 [4], 318, 319 [1], 322 Disloyalty charges against Government employees, investigation of, 377 [24] Marshall, Gen. George C, criticism of, 293 News conference remarks on, 26 [20, 22], 35 [5l>247 [2L253 [10] McCarthy, Martin, 315 n. McCarran, Sen. Pat, 88 [19], 136 [5], 291 n.,298 [141,301 McCarran-Walter Act. See Immigration and Nationality Act McClellan, Gen. George B., 282 [7], 289 [9] McClellan, Sen. John L., 53 McClendon, Sarah, 98 [33] McCloy, John J., 362 n. McConnell, Raymond A., Jr., 98 [9] McConnell, Repr. Samuel K., FEPC amend- ment, 290 McCormack, Repr. John W., 143 n., 292 [12], 296 1295 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] McCormick, Adm. Lynde D., 25 McCormick, Col. Robert R., 129, 238 [14], 3r7 [2] McDonald, Harry A., 31 [6] McFarland, Sen. Ernest W., 123 [17], 143 n., 159 n. McGowan, Patrick A., 306 [3, 5] McGranery, James P., 136 [9], 143, 161, 165, 268 [3] See also Attorney General (James P. Mc- Granery) McGrath, J. Howard, 75 ftn. (p. 230) News conference remarks on, 156 [6], 258 [6, 8] See also Attorney General (J. Howard McGrath) McGuire, Arthur, 289 [3] McGuire, Repr. John A., 292 [1-3], 298 [8] McGuire, Peter J., 237 McHale, Frank, 107 [5] Mclntire, Vice Adm. Ross T., 135, 243 McKay, Ernest R., 280 [1,3] McKeesport, Pa., campaign remarks, 308 [3] McKellar, Sen. Kenneth, 105, 109, 180, 217, 358 McKeough, Raymond, 88 [8] McKim, Mead and White, 229 n. McKinley, William, 129, 286 [5], 306 [2, 4]. 311 [3] McKinney, Frank E., 2 [6], 7 [3], 28, 64 [2, 5, 10, 11, 16], 69, 71, 88 [15], 127 [4, 16], 136 [7] McKinnon, Repr. Clinton D., 26 [14] McMahon, Sen. Brien, 21 [3], 115 [3], 170, 219, 292 [2, 5], 293 n., 298 [9, 10, 11] McMath, Gov. Sidney S., 193, 194, 195 [3], 197 [5], 228 [2] McMeekin, Dr. Thomas L., 117 McNamara, Fred A., 249 McNary-Haugen farm bills, 1920's, 267 Mead, George H., 203 n. Meade, James M., 263 Meany, George, 7 [1], 203 n. Meat Production and sale, 33 Prices, 33, 282 [8] United Kingdom, availability of, 57 Mediation and Conciliation Service, Federal, 18 (p. 93), 22, 37, 58 Medical and dental education, 5 Medical care, 2 [3], 18 (pp. 108, no), 135, 249, 268 [8], 273, 278, 284 [5], 333 Mellon, Andrew, 69 Memoirs, the President's plans for writing, 377 [17] Memorial Day, statement, 139 Memorandums, etc., to Federal agencies or officials Airport Commission, recommendations, 155 n. Coal industry wage dispute, 341 Critical materials, 355 Defense mobilization, 245 Economic study by FTC, request for, 263 European industrial progress survey, 257 George C. Marshall Research Foundation, 387 Government employee security, 223 Highway safety, 93 John Carter Vincent loyalty case, 362 n. Legislative requests for Executive infor- mation, 60, 76, 91 Petroleum industry, labor dispute, 58 President's Airport Commission, 41 Tax benefits, shipping industry, 225, 226 Treaties and executive agreements, 140 Uprising in Korean prisoner-of-war camps, 162 See also Congress, letters to Members of Mental illness and mental retardation, 268 [8] Mercer, Clarence, 117 Merchant marine, 18 (p. 82), 177, 226, 231, 367(pp.ii42-ii43) 1296 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 17 [32], 177, 211, 225, 226 Meredith, Margaret, 173 n. Meriden, Conn., campaign remarks, 292 [3] Merit system, Civil Service, 70th anniversary, 390 Merrill, Eugene H., 281 Merrill, Joseph R, 281 Merrimack River, 294 Messages to the American people Community Chest campaign, 264 Farewell address, 378 Mutual Security Program, 57 National Community Christmas Tree, lighting, 356 Red Cross campaign, 50 Steel industry, need for Government op- eration of, 82 Metals industry, nonferrous, labor dispute, 37 Metcalf, Lee, 268 [9], 269 n., 270 [1, 5, 6-8] Methodist ministers, Illinois, 42, 44 [2] Metzger, John William, 280 [4, 5, 6], 282 [1-4, 6-8], 283 n. Mexico Air service to, 246 Border with U.S., immigration law en- forcement, 367 (p. 1 163) Migrant workers in U.S., 2 [5], 18 (p. 94), 21 [26], 31 [i4],367(pp. 1150-1151) Tello, Manuel, 2 [5] U.S. Ambassador William O'Dwyer, ques- tion of resignation, 115 [2] Mexico City, 262, 263 Mexico (Mo.) Ledger, 26 [9, 10] Michigan Campaign remarks, 317, 318 Candidates for public office, 317 [1, 3-7] Gov. G. Mennen Williams, 317 [1-7], 318 Middle East and Near East, 5 Allied command, proposed, 6, 55 Assistance, 6, 15, 18 (p. 76), 55, 57, 73 Refugees, 367 (p. 1140) Middletown, Conn. Campaign remarks, 292 [4] Mayor Steve Bailey, 292 [3] Midway, Battle of, 10th anniversary, 142 Midwest Drought, 166 [10] Floods, 97, 98 [8], 101, 109, 119 Migrants from Europe, Provisional Inter- Governmental Committee for the Move- ment of, 65, 164 Migratory Labor, Commission on, 18 (p. 94), 367(^1151) Military Academy, U.S., 130, 131, 142 Military assistance and defense support, 15, 17 [2], 18 (pp. 64, 73"77)> 55> 69> I0I> 128, 144, 190, 259, 275, 279, 281, 283, 295 t1]* 3°3 l>L 3*3 l>L 3*9 [6L 378 Address to American people, 57 Africa, 15 Asia, 15, 18 (pp. 76, 77), 55, 196, 354 Australia, 5, 26 [21], 95 China, 18 (p. 76) Europe, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 74, 75), 144, 158, 288, 295 [8], 298 [8], 317 [2] Expenditures for, 205, 231, 367 (pp. 1139- 1140) Formosa, 18 (p. 76), 367 (p. 1140) France, 27, 367 (p. 1140) Greece, 18 (p. 75), 27, 55, 288, 317 [2] Indochina, 5, 27, 367 (p. 1140) Iran, 144 Japan, 95, in Korea, 307, 310, 315 [5], 320, 354 Latin America, 15, 18 (p. 77), 55 Malaya, 5 Near East, 15, 18 (pp. 75-77) New Zealand, 5, 26 [21], 95 News conference remarks, 17 [2], 123 [2] Philippines, 5, 18 (p. 76), 26 [21], 95, 367 (p. 1 140) Reduction, Republican proposals, 319 [5] Steel production, effect on, 116 1297 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Military assistance and defense support — Continued Turkey, 18 (pp. 75, 76), 27, 55, 288, 317 Yugoslavia, 18 (p. 75), 55 See also Mutual security program Military personnel Expenditures for, 367 (pp. 1135-1136) Housing, 5 Increase, 18 (p. 69) Medical care, 333 Old age and survivors insurance, exten- sion to, 18 (p. 70) Pay, 18 (pp. 69, 70), 64 [17], 231, 275, 322 Retired generals, 377 [30] Retirement, 18 (p. 70), 213, 367 (pp. 1135-1136) Voting rights, 68, 96, 124 Welfare programs, 297 See also Armed Forces, U.S.; Veterans Military strength, U.S., 5, 55, 57, 128, 131, 158, 275, 279, 293, 315 [4], 317 [7], 318,319 [6], 366 Military Surgeons, Association of, remarks, 333 Military training and education, universal, 18 (P. 72) Miller, Justin, 7 [11] Miller-Tydings Fair Trade Act of 1937, 204 Milliken, Sen. Eugene D., 297 Mills, Repr. Wilbur D., 193 n., 195 [3] Milwaukee, Wis. Campaign remarks, 241 Eisenhower campaign speech, comment on, 293 Visit to, 123 [15] Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Inter- national Union of, 37 Mine Workers of America, United, 341 Mineral resources Conservation and development, 5, 15, 18 (P. 89) Mineral resources — Continued Five-year censuses, 367 (p. 1156) Imports, 15, 55, 57 See also specific minerals Minerva clock, White House, 228 [1], 229 Mines, Bureau of, 18 (pp. 89, 94), 231, 280 [5] Minidoka power project, 367 (p. 1146) Minimum wage, 241, 242 [3], 273, 281, 296, 298 [1], 312, 366 See also Wages Mining industry Frankfort, 111., explosion, 150 Safety legislation, proposed, 19, 21 [2, 3], 150 Ministers Meeting, Interdenominational, 290 Minneapolis, Minn., campaign remarks, 313 . [5] .' Minneapolis Tribune, 35 [3] Minnesota Campaign remarks, 266 [1], 313, 314 Candidates for public office, 266 [1], 3!3> 3M Flood relief in, 97 Gov. C. Elmer Anderson, 97 Primary elections, 7 [3], 64 [8] Minot, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [7] Mississippi River Basin Barge transportation in, 18 (p. 83) Floods, control and relief, 97, 109, 194 Missouri Campaign for Senate seat, recollections by the President, 193 Campaign remarks, 284 [4-6], 322, 324 Candidates for public office, 21 [8], 26 [18], 35 [6], 75 [5]. 98 [39]> 149 [3L 156 [1], 197 [I2L 284 [4, 5], 322, 377 [29] Delegation at Democratic National Con- vention, 197 [17] Floods, control and relief, 3, 18 (p. 88), 32, 50, 97, 109, 119 Gov. Forrest Smith, 98 [13], 157, 158 1298 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Missouri — Continued Natural resources, conservation and de- velopment, 3 Power projects, 3, 62, 194 Primary elections, 21 [12], 26 [18], 75 [6], 221 [5] Redistricting, proposed, 26 [18] Missouri, University of 98 [13] Missouri, U.S.S., 255, 266 [4] Missouri Basin Survey Commission, 3, 18 (p.88),32,269,367(p.ii47) Missouri River Basin, 3, 32, 101, 109, 266 [6], 269 News conference remarks, 26 [23], 98 [8,9] Power projects, 109 Missouri River Basin Commission, 109, 388 Mitchell, Repr. Hugh B., 272, 274-276 Mitchell, John, 306 [1] Mitchell, Stephen A., 342 [8], 377 [27] Mobilization Policy, National Advisory Board on, no Moline, 111., campaign remarks, 315 [5] Mollohan, Robert H., 242 [4], 308 [1] Monroe, James, 229 Montana Campaign remarks, 266 [13], 268-270 Candidates for political office, 266 [13], 268,269,270 [1,5-8], 271 Floods, 268 [2] Hungry Horse Dam, dedication, 271 Gov. John W. Bonner, 266 [13], 268 [2-4, 7-9], 269, 270 [1, 4-8], 271, 274 [4], 278 n. Power projects, 271 Sun River irrigation project, 80 Montana Power Co., 270 [8], 271 Montgomery, Gen. Bernard L., 250 Montgomery, Ruth, 98 [34, 35] Moody, Sen. Blair, 49 [7], 317, 318 Moore, A. Harry, 303 n. Moore, Harry T., 290 Moore, Mrs. Harry T., 290 n. Moran, Joseph A., 306 [6] Moreel, Benjamin, 116 Morgan, Repr. Thomas E., 308 [4] Morris, Newbold, 35 [1], 36, 44 [10], 64 [15], 75 [2, 4], 98 [3, 36] Morrison, Harold A., 266 [3, 4, 7] Morrison, Howard L., 311 [3] Morse, Sen. Wayne, 107 [13], 129, 166 [5] and ftn. (p. 416), 175 [12], 277 [1, 3], 280, 284, [6], 293, 307, 312, 317 [3] Mortgage Association, Federal National, 18 Mortgages Farm, foreclosures in depression, 284 [1, 2], 285 Insurance, 18 (pp. 95, 97), 231, 367 (pp. 1152-1153) Mosaic law, 45 Moss, John E., Jr., 277 [6] Motion Picture Association, 20 Moulder, Repr. Morgan M., 284 [5] "Mr. President," William Hillman, 31 [5], 64 U] Muccio, John J., 299 Mudaliar, Sir Ramaswami, 253 [1] Mullaney, T. W., 315 [2] Multer, Repr. Abraham J., 300 Muncie, Ind., campaign remarks, 286 [3] Mundt, Sen. Karl E., 129 Munitions Board, Chairman (John D. Small), 26 [1] Murphy, Charles S., 45 Murphy, Frank, 318 Murphy, Repr. James J., 300 Murphy, Joseph M., 63 Murphy, Robert, 26 [30] Murphy, Judge Thomas F., 2 [20], 7 [n] Murray, Sen. James E., 3, 32, 266 [13], 268, 269, 270 [1, 6, 7], 271 Murray, Philip, 116, 216, 230 n. Muscle Shoals dam and power project, 69, 267 Muskegon, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [1] 1299 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Mutual Defense Assistance Act, 310 Mutual Defense Assistance Control Act of 1951, 105, 180,217 Mutual defense assistance program, 47, 67 Mutual defense treaties Australia, 95 Japan, 95, in New Zealand, 95 Philippines, 95 Mutual Security Acts J951. 27> 55> 61, 65-67, 367 (p. 1138, 1141) 1952, 123 [7], 149 [5, 11, 20], 156 ftn. (p. 403) Mutual Security Agency, 18 (p. 115), 55, 67, 81, 257 Mutual Security Director (W. Averell Har- riman), 27, 48 n., 55, 65-67, 105, 107 Ul. I27 [8], 136 [16], 180,331,358 Mutual Security Director (W. Stuart Symington), 75 [6] Mutual security program, 18 (pp. 73-76), 61, 69, 217, 218, 367 (pp. 1138-1141) Africa, 55 Appropriations of, 205 Asia, 55, 57 Europe, 55, 57 Latin America, 55 Message to Congress, 55 Middle East, 55, 57 Public Advisory Board, 203 Report to Congress, message transmitting., 332 Republican stand on, 291 Myers, Sen. Francis J., 305 Myers, Victor A., 274 n. Myersdale, Pa., campaign remarks, 308 [6] Nangle, John, 21 [20] Nash, Philleo, 26 [20] Nashua, N.H., campaign remarks, 292 [13] Nashville Tennessean, 284 [5] National Advisory Board on Mobilization Policy, no National Advisory Committee for Aero- nautics, 18 (p. 18), 367 (p. 1135) National Archives, 149 [16], 174, 347, 387 National Association of Broadcasters, 43 n. National Association of Manufacturers, 294, 306 [2], 314, 319 [1], 321 [2] National Association of State Civil Defense Directors, 353 [3] National Blood Program, 249 National Citizens' Committee on United Nations Day, 259 National Civil Service League, address, 117 National Community Christmas Tree, 356 National Conference on Citizenship, 251 National Conference on International Eco- nomic and Social Development, ad- dress, 81 National conventions. See Political parties National Council of Churches, 260 National debt. See Debt, national National economy, 69 National emergency Mobilization planning, 122 News conference remarks on, 175 [9] Presidential powers during, 107 [1, 7, 10, 12, 13] National Employ the Physically Handi- capped Week, 243 National Famine Emergency Committee, 98 ftn. (p. 270), 377 ftn. (p. 1 196) National Forensic League medal, accept- ance, 173 National 4-H Club Camp, 176 National Guard, Illinois, 290 National Housing Conference, address, 120 National Jewish Welfare Board, 297 National Labor Relations Act, 315 [1] National Labor Relations Board, 18 (p. 93), 35 ["], 37 National Newspaper Publishers Association, remarks, 329 National Parks. See Parks, national 1300 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] National Ploughing Contest, question of President's attendance, 228 [6] National Press Club, 136 [16] National Production Authority, 18 (p. 79) National Professional Committee for Eisen- hower and Nixon, 284 [5] Natural rubber, stockpiling, 12 National Rural Electric Cooperative Asso- ciation, message, 62 National Safety Council, 93 National Science Foundation, 13, 18 (p. io3X367(P-"56) National security, 13, 18 (pp. 64, 65), 35 [3], 38, 40, 55, 57, 66, 222, 223, 268 [5], 289 [2], 101, 131, 144, 147, 170, 180, 182, 215, 237, 273, 366, 379 Administration measures, Republican op- position, 218 Allies, dependence on, 55, 57, 10 1 Aluminum industry strike, threat to, 22 Appropriations, 125, 170, 273, 275 Atomic Energy Commission construction program, 200 Atomic energy development for, 18 (p. 87) Budget emphasis on, 17 [2] Campaign remarks on, 287, 319 [5] Civil defense, 5, 9 Communist subversion, measures against, 288 Danger from appropriations cuts, 205 Defense program, 123 [2], 128, 147, 149 [n, 12], 158, 275, 276, 295 [8], 307, 3J3 [5> 61,367 (pp. 1 129, 1 130) Aid to schools in areas affected by, 18 (p. 102), 367 (pp. 1155,1156) Congressional action on, 125 Economy, adjustment to, 5, 15, 17 [3], 33, 101, 215, 268 [7], 272, 282 [4], 283, 289 [8], 292 [10], 293, 294, 300,307,313 [6], 349, 366 Financing, 18 (pp. 66, 67, 68) Issue in election campaign, 275 National security — Continued Economic stabilization, importance to, 34i Eisenhower, Gen. Dwight D., views of, 293 Electric power, effect on, 388 Emergency powers, proposed continua- tion, 79 European defense, relationship to, 217, 358 Expenditures for. See Spending by Gov- ernment Federal programs, management improve- ment, 18 (pp. 115, 116) Government personnel procedures, 370 Highways, defense, 18 (p. 84) Labor disputes, adverse effect of, 148 Oil reserves, 377 [11] Oil strike, effect on, 58 St. Lawrence Seaway project, importance to, 23, 189 Steel strike, effect on, 82, 83, 103, 118, 161 Tax program to finance, 367 (p. 1132) Work stoppages, danger to defense pro- gram, 215 See also Civil defense National Security Act of 1947, 375 National Security Council, 147, 158, 222, 310, 323> 34°> 366 National Security Resources Board, 191, 192, 338> 355> 375 St. Lawrence Seaway project, support of, 23 National Security Resources Board, Chair- man (Jack Gorrie), 38 Letter, 355, 375 National Security Resources Board, Chair- man (W. Stuart Symington), 79 National Security Training Commission, 18 (P- 73) National Service Life Insurance, discontinu- ance, 18 (p. 109, no) National Shipping Authority, 231, 367 (p. 1 143) 1301 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated National Sojourners, 134 n. National Symphony Orchestra, luncheon remarks, 262 National Wage Policy Committee, 216 National War College, address, 354 NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty Or- ganization Natural gas, 289 [n] Exchange with Canada, 377 [25] Natural History Museum, 88 [1] Natural resources, conservation and develop- ment, 3, 15, 17 [19], 18 (p. 87), 98 [9], 129, 146, 179, 194, 215, 218, 231, 267, 367 (pp. 1145-1147, 1149-1150), 376,388 See also Irrigation projects; Reclamation projects; specific resources Naturalization laws, 182 Nautilus, U.S.S., 156 [6] Gift of model to President, 171 n. Keel-laying ceremony, 170 Navajo Tribal Council representatives, re- marks to, 46 Naval Academy, U.S., 130 Luncheon remarks, 142 Navigation, aids to, 18 (p. 83), 40, 292 [7], 367 (p. 1 143), 376 Navy, 131 Aircraft carrier, construction, 17 [21] Hospitals, surplus, 212 Increase in strength, 18 (p. 69), 158, 275, 367 (p. 1 134) Offshore oil lands, transfer to, 377 [11, 14] Petroleum products, use of, 379 Racial discrimination elimination, 290, 315 [6] Reserve ships, reactivation, 17 [2], 18 (P. 64) Navy, Department of the, 170 Stevenson, Gov. Adlai, wartime service in, 289 [5], 292 [2], 317 [4] Navy, Secretary of the (Dan A. Kimball), 128, 131, 170, 171 Nazis, persecution of Jews by, 297 Near East. See Middle East and Near East Nebraska, Gov. Val Peterson, 97 Neely, Sen. Matthew M., 242 [3, 4] Negroes Education, 169 Equal rights, 169, 290, 353 [16] Nesemeir, Edward, 266 [3, 4, 7] Netherlands Assistance, 105 Carillon, gift to U.S., 78 Dairy products, restrictions on imports to U.S., 360 Drees, Willem, 21 [21] Investments in U.S., 218 NATO participation, 78, 105 Oil drilling equipment, shipment to Poland, 105 Population growth, 65 Prince Bernhard, 73 n., 74 n., 77 n., 78 Queen Juliana, 31 [4], 73, 74, 77, 78 Strategic materials, export to Communist bloc, 358 U.S. relations with, 78 World War II resistance efforts, 78 World wars, financial drain on, 218 Nevada, U.S. Attorney, commission for, 377 [22.] . New Britain, Conn. Campaign remarks, 292 [5] Mayor John L. Sullivan, 292 n. New Brunswick, N.J., campaign remarks, 3°3 [5] New Deal, 69, 129, 175 [5, 13], 241, 270 [7], 272, 274 [2], 276, 278, 280 [4], 281, 284 [*L 295 [3> 9L 296> 298 [>> 2> 6> 9> J3> 14], 300, 303 [2, 5], 304, 305, 306 [1, 5, 7], 307, 308 [1, 3], 311 [1], 313 [4, 6], 3I5[I>3l>321 [3*6,71,322,366 New England, economic problems of, 294 1302 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] New Freedom, 366 New Hampshire Campaign remarks, 292 [13], 294, 295 [1-6] Candidates for public office, 292 [13], 294, 295i>>3>5>6] Gov. Sherman Adams, 292 n., 295 [ 1 ], 312 Primary elections, 26 [3, 8], 28, 31 [13, I5]>49[i3]>64 [81 New Haven, Conn., campaign remarks, 298 [8] New Jersey Campaign remarks, 303 [2-7] Candidates for public office, 303 [2-7] Gov. Alfred E. Driscoll, 303 [6] New London, Conn. Campaign remarks, 298 [6] Luncheon remarks at U.S. Submarine Base, 171 New Mexico, river basin development, 21 [23] New Rochelle, N.Y. Campaign remarks, 298 [12] Mayor Stanley W. Church, 298 n. New Year resolutions, the President's, 359 [13] New York Campaign remarks, 288, 289, 298 [12-14], 300 Candidates for public office, 21 [30], 221 [73,289,298 [12, 14], 300 Democratic State Chairman, 359 [11] Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, 26 [21], 127 [17], 129, 143, 233 [15], 242 [1], 267, 268 [3], 283, 289 [10, n], 295 [6], 298 [14], 303 [6], 304, 306 [1], 3J3 [4] St. Lawrence Seaway, role in power proj- ect, 175 [7] New York City Campaign remarks, 289 [12], 290, 291, 298 [13, 14], 300 New York City — Continued Financial interests, influence in Eisen- hower nomination, 319 [5], 320 Harbor improvement, 367 (p. 1143) Mayor Vincent R. Impelliteri, 290 n., 291 n. New York-New England Inter- Agency Com- mittee, 294 New York Times, 321 [4] New York Trades and Labor Assembly, 237 New York Tribune, 45 New Zealand Dairy products, restrictions on imports to U.S., 360 Military assistance, 95 Mutual defense treaty, 5, 26 [21], 95 Newark, N.J., campaign remarks, 303 [3] Newport, Ark., campaign remarks, 193, 195 [3] News conferences, the President's January 3, 2 January 10, 7 Januarys, 1953,377 January 19, 17 January 24, 21 February 7, 31 February 14, 35 February 20, 44 February 28, 49 March 20, Key West, 64 April 3, 75 April 10, 88 April 17, 98 April 24, 107 May 1, 115 May 8, 123 May 15, 127 May 22, 136 May 29, 149 June 5, 156 June 12, 166 June 19, 175 1303 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] News conferences, the President's — Con. July 3, 197 August 7, 221 August 14, 228 August 21, 233 August 28, 238 September 11, 247 September 18, 253 September 25, 258 November 20, 334 December 4, 342 December 11, 345 December 18, 353 December 31, 359 Newsome, Herschel D., 203 n. Newspaper Editors, American Society of, 88 [1], 98 Newspaper editors, news conference remarks on, 98 [20] Newspaper Publishers Association, National, remarks, 329 Niagara River power project, 18 (p. 69) Nicaragua Ambassador Guillermo Sevilla-Sacasa, 115 [4] Somoza, Anastasio, 115 [4] Nieto del Rio, Felix, 123 [13], 127 [2] Niles, David K., death of, 265 Nimitz, Fleet Adm. Chester W., 136 [1] Nitrogen production, 33 Nixon, Sen. Richard M., 247 [3], 258 [1, 3, 13], 266 [7], 278, 282 [4], 284 [5], 288, 289 [7, 11], 291, 292 [5], 295 [9], 298 [9], 301, 304, 308 [1, 7], 312 313 [1], 314, 315 [1], 319 [5], 320, 321 [2, 4, 7], 322 Nixon, Robert G., 88 [14], 342 [20] Norfork Dam, Ark., dedication, 194 Norman, Okla., 194 Norrell, Repr. W. F., 271 Norris, George, 277 [1], 312 North American Holding Co., 143 North Atlantic Council, 112 Temporary Committee, 18 North Atlantic Treaty, 21 [21], 354, 366, 378 Defense efforts by member states, 15 Imports from member states, proposed re- moval of restrictions, 15 Republican stand on, 291 Third anniversary, remarks, 77 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 5, 26 ftn. (p. 133), and [21], 27, 47, 69, 81, 107 [2], 151, 152, 158, 180 n., 182, 196, 303 l>L 3°7> 3X7 l>L 358 Appropriations for U.S. contribution, dan- ger in reduction of, 205 Atlantic Command, joint statement on, 16 Danish contribution to, 217 Editors from NATO countries, attendance at news conference, 149 [ 1 ] Lisbon meeting, 48, 49 [17], 55, 57 Membership, admissions Germany, 6, 158 Greece, 5, 8, 18 (p. 75), 77 Spain, 31 [7] Turkey, 5, 8, 18 (p. 76), 77 Military strength, 18 (p. 74), 55, 57, 367 (pp. 1139-1140) Netherlands, participation, 78, 105 Refugees, European, proposed enlistment in forces of, 65 Rifles and ammunition, proposed stand- ardization, 6 Supreme Allied Commander, Adantic (Adm. Lynde D. McCormick), 25 Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (Gen. D wight D. Eisenhower), 18 (p-75)>55>57>79 Presidential candidacy, relief to permit, 7 [J°] Resignation, 64 [9], 88 [4], 112 Successor, question of appointment, 88 [!2, *4> 17] 1304 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] North Atlantic Treaty Organization — Con. Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway), 112 Third anniversary, remarks, 77 Trade with Soviet bloc, reduction, 217 U.S. participation and support, 218, 288, 366 North Carolina, University of, 98 [13] North Dakota Campaign remarks, 266 [2-12], 267 Candidates for public office, 266 [3-1 1] Gov. C. Norman Brunsdale, 97 Oil, 266 [9, 10] North Haven, Conn., campaign remarks, 292 [1] Northumberland, Pa., campaign remarks, 3°6 U] Norwalk, Conn., campaign remarks, 298 [10] Norway, Torp, Oscar, 258 [10] Nurses, shortage of, 333, 367 (p. 1158), 369 Nyrop, Donald W., 155, 246, 351 Oakland, Calif., campaign remarks, 279 Oatis, William N., 49 [12], 115 [15] Oberg, Stuart W., 181 n. O'Brien, Repr. Leo W., 289 O'Brien, Michael P., 287 n. Occupational training Disabled persons, 243, 367 (p. 1158) Federal aid, 367 (pp. 1150, 1155) Government employees, 18 (p. 112) Older persons, 18 (p. 104) Veterans, 18 (p. 108), 231, 243 Occupied areas, Germany, 151, 345 [1] O'Connell, John J., 274 [3, 7], 276 O'Donnell, Gerald, 313 n. O'Dwyer, William, 64 [15], 115 [2] Offshore lands. See Public lands O'Grady, Msgr. John, 244, 373 Ohio Campaign remarks, 240 [2], 242 [1], 311 [1, 2], 286 [4-6], 287, 319 [1-6], 320 Ohio — Continued Candidates for public office, 34, 253 [8], 286 [4-6], 287, 311 [1], 319 [2-6], 320 Floods, control and relief, 50 Gov. Frank J. Lausche, 253 [8], 286 n., 287 n., 311 [1, 2], 319 [1-6], 320 Ohio River Basin, 50 Oil Cartel in industry, allegations of, 197 [6, 13], 221 [11], 372 Companies, refusal to release books, 377 [26] _ Consumption in U.S., 379 Imports, 239 Industry, question of Government oper- ation, 115 [9] Iran dispute with United Kingdom, 5, 6 Labor dispute in industry, 58, 123 [6] Navy, transfer of offshore oil lands to, 377 [n> 14] North Dakota, 266 [9, 10] Offshore, public ownership of, 129, 146, 238 [8], 266 [9, 10], 289 [n], 314, 32* [2], 379 Production, 58, 280 [5], 379 Refining capacity, expansion, 15 Teapot Dome scandal, 1920's, 277 [1] Tidelands,293,3i7[3] Oil Workers International Union, 58 Oklahoma, floods, control and relief, 119, 194 Oklahoma, University of, 266 [11] Old age and survivors insurance. See In- surance Old Saybrook, Conn., campaign remarks, 298 [7] Older persons Employment, 18 (p. 104) Public assistance, 367 (pp. 1156, 1157) Social security. See Social security Olsen, Arnold H., 268 n. Olson, Curtiss, 266 [ 1 ] 55-672—66 1305 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Olympic National Park, 342 [ 1 ], 365 Omaha, Nebr., remarks in, 97 O'Mahoney, Sen. Joseph C, 49 [8], 146, 199 Omar N. Bradley Gold Medal, 29 n. Oneida, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [4] O'Neill, Repr. Harry P., 306 [ 1 ] O'Neill, James R, 298 [3] O'Neill, Thomas P., 296 O'Neill, Vincent, 317 [2] Ontario, Canada, role in St. Lawrence Sea- way project, 23 "Operation Skywatch," statements on, 202, 344 OPS. See Price Stabilization, Office of Order of Railway Conductors, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Oregon Campaign remarks, 277 [ 1 ] Candidates for public office, 277 [ 1 ] Oregon Journal, 233 ftn. (p. 530) Organization of American States, 55 Charter, 92 Council, remarks to, 94 62d anniversary, 94 Osgood, Warren L., 157 n. O'Toole, Repr. Donald L., 300 Ottawa, Ohio, campaign remarks, 319 [2] "Ozark Hillbilly Medallion of the Spring- field (Mo.) Chamber of Commerce," 157 n. Pace, Frank, Jr. See Army, Secretary of the Pacific Junction, Iowa, campaign remarks, 284 [1] Pacific Northwest Electric generating facilities, 18 (p. 89) Power projects, 277 [1], 367 (p. 1146) Pacific Relations, Institute of, 362 n. Pakistan Ambassador Mohammed Ali, 252 Assistance, 55 Pakistan — Continued Uprising in Korean prisoner-of-war camps, question of investigation by, 162 Wheat loan document, signing, 252 Palestine, 297 Paley, William S., 179, 203 Palmer, Dwight, 7 [ 1 ] Pan American Day, 94 Pan American Sanitary Bureau, 207 Panama Canal, employee compensation claims, 208 Panama Canal Company, 18 (p. 83), 208 Panmunjon, Korea, armistice negotiations, 75 [1] Paraguay, point 4 program in, 5 Paraplegics Manufacturing Co., 243 Paris, 262 Paris, Treaty of (1899), 104 Parkersburg, W. Va., campaign remarks, 242 [2] Parks, national, 342 [ 1 ] Passamaquoddy tidal power project, 31 [11] Pastore, Sen. John O., 298 [5], 299 Paterson, Chat, 287 n. Patterson, Robert P., 7 [6], 26 [27], 310 Patton, James G., 203 n. Pay Government employees, 1, 11, 18 (pp. 71, 113), 86 Members of Congress, 207, 258 [14] Military personnel, 18 (pp. 69, 70), 64 [171,231,275,322 Retired generals, 377 [30] President's, 377 [3, 30] Railroad employees, 306 [6] Payroll taxes. See Taxes Peanuts, price supports, 210 Pearl Harbor, 344 Pearson, Lester (Canadian Foreign Minis- ter), 98 [32L I02 Peel, Roy V., letter, 363 Pendergast, James M., 21 [6] 1306 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Pendergast, T. J., 3 1 [11] Pendleton Act (1883), 84 Pennsylvania Campaign remarks, 240 [1], 286 [8], 303 [9, 10], 3°4-3°7> 3°8 t2"6] Candidates for public office, 240 [1], 286 [8], 3°3 [9> I0L 3°4-3o6> 3°8 [2"61 Democratic Party, 26 [3] Floods, control and relief, 50 Pennsylvania, University of, 305 Pensions Social security. See Social security Veterans, 18 (p. 109), 138, 367 (p. 1160) Perkins, Fred, 98 [25] Perlman, Philip B., 244, 297, 373 Perimeter, Irving, 253 [1] Perry, Joseph S., 35 ftn. (p. 154) Person, C. T., 32 Personnel Recruitment Act, Federal, 137 Peterson, Harry J., 32 Peterson, Gov. Val, 44 [8], 97 Petroleum products Armed forces, use of, 379 Consumption in U.S., 379 Imports from Venezuela, 239 Production, 379 Pettit, H. Frank, 303 [4] Pfost, Mrs. Grade, 269 n., 270 [9, 10] Phelps Dodge Corp., 37 Philadelphia, Pa., 49 [10], 63 Campaign remarks, 304 Mayor Joseph S. Clark, Jr., 249 n. Philbin, Repr. Philip J., 292 [n] Philbrick, Herbert, 300 Philippines Assistance, 18 (p. 76), 95, 367 (p. 1140) Communist aggression in, 55, 367 (p. 1 140) Mutual defense treaty, 5, 26 [21], 95 Pick, Lt. Gen. Lewis A., 97, 98 [8, 34], 194, 195 [1] Pickett, Clarence E., 244, 373 Pick-Sloan plan, Missouri valley develop- ment, 3, 98 [8] Pierce, Alfred R., 303 [7] Pierce, Franklin, 7 [10] Pierce, Walter, 277 [ 1 ] Piercey, John H., 317 [1] Pinchot, Gifford, 277 [3] Pine, Judge David E., 136 [19] Pinero, Jesus T., 104 Piper, A. M., 98 [8] Pittsburgh, Pa. Campaign remarks, 240 [1], 306 [8], 307 Mayor David L. Lawrence, 240 n., 307 Plaistow, N. H., campaign remarks, 295 [6] Pneumonia, 249 Poage, Repr. W. R., 7 [6], 149 [4] Point 4 program, 5, 20, 55, 57, 72, 81, 107 [2], 144, 169, 196, 218, 228 [10], 257, 261, 262, 274 [1], 303 [2], 307, 313 !>]> 3*5 [5L 322> 337. 354. 36$ Appropriations, 205, 281 Asia, 144 Campaign remarks, 281 India, 55, 57 Indochina, 57 Latin America, 55 Turkey, 57 Poirier, Peter, 294, 295 [1, 3, 5, 6] Poland Katyn Forest massacre, 317 [7] Korean armistice commission member- ship, 121 Oil drilling equipment, shipment from Netherlands, 105 Poling, Daniel, 7 [9] Political Action Committee, CIO, remarks, 230 Political parties Continuation in office, question of limit on, 98 [15] 1307 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Political parties — Continued Income taxes, deduction of bad debt loans to political parties, 127 [7, 9] National conventions, unit rule respecting delegations, 98 [41] Political Science Association, American, 68, 96 Political system, U.S., 7 [10], 123 [10], 184, 286 [3], 289 Politics, comments on, 69 Polk, James K., 107 [ 10], 229 n. Poll tax, proposed abolition, 169 Polls, political, 35 [8], 129, 136 [8], 143, 218, 267 Pontiac, Mich., campaign remarks, 317 [6] Pope, Doyle, 194 Pope, Fortune, 291 n. Population growth, Europe, 65 "Porgy and Bess," musical, 221 [10] Porter, Paul A., 34 Portland, Maine, harbor improvements, 367 (p. 1143)^ Ports, protection against sabotage, 303 [2] Portsmouth, N.H., 171 Campaign remarks, 295 [ 1 ] Portugal, U.S. Ambassador, question of ap- pointment, 31 [8] Post Office Department, reorganization, 18 (p. 85), 84, 85, 115 [14], 117, 135, 137 Postmaster General (Jesse M. Donaldson), 155 n., 248 Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Post office quarters, authority to lease, 214 Resignation, 383 Postal service, 18 (p. 85) Airmail, payments to carriers, 18 (p. 83), 367 (p. 1144) Deficit, 18 (p. 85), 231, 367 (p. 1 144) Efficiency, improvement, 18 (pp. 85, 116) Quarters for, authority of Postmaster General to lease, 214 Postal service — Continued Rates, 18 (p. 85), 231, 367 (p. 1 144) Potsdam conference (1945), 107 [14], 378 Pottsville, Pa., campaign remarks, 305 Power projects, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 88, 89), 129, 241, 274 [2, 5], 276, 280 [1], 291, 304, Arkansas, 193, 194, 195 [1, 2] Atomic, 18 (p. 87), 170 Bonneville Power Administration, 388 California, 277 [3, 4] Campaign remarks, 280 [6], 281, 298 [2,3] Colorado, 280 [4, 6] Columbia River Basin, 271, 274 [1], 297, 388 Connecticut River, 292 [7] Expenditures for, 367 (pp. 1146-1147) Federal policy, 62 Generating capacity, 62, 388 Hells Canyon, 18 (p. 88), 270 [9] Idaho, 270 [9] Missouri River Basin, 3, 62, 109, 194, 266 [6] Montana, 268 [5], 269, 271 New England, 294 Niagara River, 18 (p. 89) Pacific Northwest, 18 (p. 89), 277 [1], 367 (p. 1 146) Passamaquoddy tidal project, 31 [n] Power pools, 175 ftn. (p. 432) Public versus private, 62, 69, 143, 149 [9], 194, 267, 289 [3], 388 Republican opposition, 218 St. Lawrence Seaway, 15, 18 (p. 88), 23, 44 [n], 62, 98 [32], 102, 175 [7], 189, 266 [2], 294, 295 [2], 298 [2, 3], 313 [6], 314, 367 (p. 1147) Sale of, proposed, 315 [3] Tennessee Valley Authority, 18 (p. 88), 62, 143, 271, 294, 298 [2], 388 Washington, 62 1308 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Presidency Administration, President's assessment of, 3i7[8],333>378 Candidates. See Candidates for public office Civil rights enforcement, 288 Civilian nature of office, 286 [6] Comments on, 45, 98 [2], 130, 184, 195 [2], 240 [2], 250, 266 [5], 268 [4, 9], 270 [10], 283, 288, 291, 295 [3, 9], 298 [10, 12], 308 [5], 319 [2], 321 [>]> 335, 366, 378 Dignity of office, 377 [30] Emergency powers, 38, 79 Expense allowances for, 361 Foreign policy, role in shaping, 289 [4] Former Presidents, proposed Senate mem- bership, 26 [10, 11], 75 [8], 377 [30] Inauguration Day plans, 353 [15], 377 [6, 8, 15] Incumbent, role in selection of successor, 21 [18], 64 [13], 98 [21], 123 [19], 127 [18], 156 [3,7], 175 [3] Military men in office, comments on, 7 [10], 282 [7], 289 [3, 9], 292 [2], 295 [3], 3°7> 3°8 [5], 3X3 [>> 3]> 321 [4], 377 [18] News conference remarks on, 342 [20], 377l>>5>7>9] Party leadership role, 286 [6] Plans upon leaving office, the President's, 75 [7], 98 [6, i3> 39], 334 [6], 342 [14, 17, 20], 353 [6], 377 [15, 17, 19, 29> 3°] Powers of, 98 [14], 107 [1, 7, 10, 12, 13], no, 115 [13], 131, 136 [9, 14, 17, 19], 142, 156 [4], 161, 175 [16], 270 UL283>335>366 Records, custody and disposition, 64 [4], x49 [M> !9]> J74> 334 [", 15] and ftn. (p. 1059) Presidency — Continued Reelection, question of President's can- didacy, 2 [6], 7 [2, 7, 10, 12], 17 [20], 21 [1, 8, 9, 11, 20, 31], 26 [3, 8, 15, 18], 28, 31 [13, 15], 35 [2], 44 [12], 49 [4, *3> T4> 16L 64 [2, 10, 13, 16], 69, 88 [2], 98 [2, 29], 115 [3, 11], 125, 127 [15], 195 [3], 197 [8] Responsibilities of office, 318 Salary, the President's, 377 [3, 30] Term of office, 26 [8], 98 [29] Transition to new administration, 342 [I5]?367(P-H29) Walks, the President's, 377 [4] President's Airport Commission, 40, 41 President's Airport Commission, Chairman (James H. Doolitde), 155 President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, 268 [8], 353 [1], 367 (p. 1 158), 369 President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization, 244, 251, 364, 373 President's Committee on Administrative Management, 84, 85 President's Committee on Civil Rights, 169, 290, 3T5 [6], 317 [8], 329 President's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped, 243 President's Committee on Equality of Treat- ment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, 315 [6] President's Committee on Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces, 297 President's Conference on Industrial Safety, 150 President's Highway Safety Conference, 93 President's Materials Policy Commission, J79> I91* T92> 203> 355 President's Materials Policy Commission, Chairman (William S. Paley), 179 President's Water Resources Policy Commit- tee, 32 1309 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] President-elect (Gen. Dwight D. Eisen- hower) Cabinet designations, 334 [19], 342 [10, II] Civil defense, meeting with president of State directors' association, 353 [3] Dulles, John Foster, meeting with, 353 [2] Election victory, statement, 325 Executive functions, discussions on trans- fer of, 331, 366, 378 Joint statement with President, 331 Korean war Prisoners, agreement with administra- tion policy, 334 [1,3,5] Visit to front, 345 [1, 4], 353 [4] White House conference, proposed, 345 Letters Government Contract Compliance, transmitting report of Committee on, 389 Government personnel procedures, 370 MacArthur, Gen. Douglas, meeting with, 353 t2] President Truman, meeting with, 334 [2, 5, 8, 14, 16] News conference remarks on, 345 [1], 353 [5] Railroad car, offer to President for re- turn to Independence, 377 [19] Telegram from the President, 326 Press Accessibility after return to private life, the President's, 377 [13] American Society of Newspaper Editors, attendance at news conference, 98 Associated Church Press, remarks, 100 Business paper editors, remarks to, 339 Columbia Scholastic Press Association, ad- dress, 63 Criticism of President, 288 Editors from NATO countries, attend- ance at news conference, 149 [1] Press — Continued Farewell to press corps, the President's, 377 [h 30] Government control, question of, 107 [1, 8,9] Interviews. See Interviews with the Presi- dent News conferences Comments on, 342 [20], 359 [13], 377 [*> 5> 7. 9] Transcripts. See News conferences, the President's Newspaper column by the President, question of, 342 [20] Periodicals, postage rates, 18 (p. 85) Political views of, 308 [2], 322 Presidents, press attacks on, 319 [2] Relations with, the President's, 98 [26] Republican control, comments on, 69, 247 [1, 8], 289 [2], 316, 317 [5, 7, 8], 318, 319 [2] Stevenson, Gov. Adlai E., attitude toward, 321 [6] Swedish, comments on Margaret Tru- man's visit, 233 [1, 6, 9] Vincent case, editorial comment on, 353 [14] Press Club, Capital, acceptance of plaque, T53 Press Club, National, 136 [ 16] Pribyson, Stanley J., 292 [2, 4, 5, 7, 8], 293, 298 [7-1 1 ] Price, Repr. Melvin, 321 [7] Price Administration, Office of, 241, 305, 319 M Price Administrator (Michael V. DiSalle), 3i [1] Price controls, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 77, 79, 80), 33, 70, 82, 218, 231, 241, 268 [5], 272, 273, 289 [11], 292 [9], 293, 300, 305, 306 [6], 3T3 [5L 3T5 [2], 3r9 OL 320> 321 [2], 322, 376 1310 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Price controls — Continued Defense Production Act amendments, 190 See also specific commodities Price Index, Consumers, 18 (p. 95) Price supports, 5, 15, 18 (p. 91), 69, 126, 129, 210, 218, 231, 266 [3, 4, 7, 9], 267, 268 [5], 274 [2], 276, 277 [6], 281, 282 [6], 284 [4], 285, 291, 300, 307, 311 [2], 312, 313 [1-4], 314, 315 [1, 4> 5L 321 [3-6], 322, 36o> 367 (P- H48) See also specific commodities Prices, 33, 215, 221 [4, 8], 287, 313 [5] Critical raw materials, 15 Farm, 194,367(^1148) Fluctuations, 15 General price freeze, 319 [ 1 ] Increase, 18 (p. 64), 33, 83, 282 [8], 292 [9]. 310- [*]> 366 Price-fixing agreements, business, 204 Retail, 15, 215 Stabilization, 5, 33, 82, 83, no, 118, 129, 161,190,241,367(^1141) Statistics collection, 18 (p. 92) Supports. See Price supports Wage-price policy, 15, 82, 118, 161, 376 Wholesale, 15, 215 World level of, 15 See also specific commodities Price Stabilization, Director of (Ellis G. Arnall),22i [3] Price Stabilization, Director of (Michael V. DiSalle),i5,34 Price Stabilization, Office of, 15, 18 (p. 80), 33, 82, 342 [15] Priestly, Joseph, 306 [4] Primary elections, 169 Arkansas, 228 [2] District of Columbia, 44 [4], 175 [5, 13] Illinois, 21 [12] Minnesota, 7 [3], 64 [8] Missouri, 21 [12], 26 [18], 75 [6], 221 [5] National, proposed, 21 [14], 28, 44 [4] Primary elections — Continued New Hampshire, 26 [3, 8], 28, 31 [13, I5L49 [13L 64 [8] Utah, 21 [10] "White primaries," elimination of, 290 Wisconsin, 247 [2] Prince, David E., 289 [7, 8] Princeton University, 45, 174 Prisoners of war, Korean, 121, 127 [12], 131, 162, 163, 166 [3], 232, 334 [1, 3, 5] Proclamations, list, Appendix B, p. 1232 Procurement, Federal Atomic energy materials, 18 (p. 87) Military, 18 (pp. 70, 75), 231, 275, 367 (pp. 1130,1135,1136-1139) Production, 289 [8], 319 [1, 3] Agricultural, 5, 15, 18 (p. 90), 62, 185, 187, 190, 210, 215, 315 [4] Aircraft, military, 5 Aluminum, 22, 33, 271 Armaments, 17 [2] Civilian, subordination to defense needs, 33 Defense, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 64, 69, 70, 74, 78, 79)> 33. 55> I22> I28> *3h M8, i58> 161, 190, 175 [12], 215, 231, 238 [12], 245, 275, 276, 313 [6], 319 [3], 349. 3^7 (PP- 1136-1137. H4I. 1 142) Fissionable materials, 17 [1] Food, 126 Increase, 5, 55, 148, 319 [1] Industrial, 15, 57, 215, 376 Loss through illness, 2 [3] Nitrogen, 33 Oil, 58, 280 [5], 379 Petroleum products, 379 Steel, 23, 82, 103, 107 [2], 116, 118, 161, 166 [5], 175 [16], 282 [4] Synthetic rubber, 12 Uranium, increase, 280 [4] Weapons, 5 See also Gross national product Production Authority, National, 18 (p. 79) 1311 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated J Profits, corporate, 15, 18 (p. 112), 33, 82, 88 [6], no, 129, 215, 231, 272, 277 [5], 289 [2, 3], 294, 376 Propaganda, Communist, 57, 63, 145, 196 Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, 18 (p. 112), 367 (p. 1161) Property management, Federal, 367 (pp. 1161-1162) Providence, R.I., campaign remarks, 299 Provisional Inter-Governmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe, 65, 164 Provo, Utah, campaign remarks, 281 Provo River, 367 (p. 030) Psychological Strategy Board, 253 [7], 303 [2] Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security, 203 Public assistance, Federal aid, 5, 18 (pp. 104, 105), 213, 231, 367 (p. 1 146) Public Debt, Bureau of the, 367 (p. 1161) Public health, 5, 333 Public Health Service, 18 (p. 106), 81, 117, 268 [81,333,367 (p. 1 157) Public Health Service Clinical Center, Be- thesda, Md., 249 Public Housing Administration, 367 (p. 1154) Public lands Offshore, 115 [7], 136 [4], 146, 149 [4], 377 [11] Management and development, 18 (p. 89) Public Roads, Bureau of, 18 (p. 84), 93, 367 (p.1144) Public Utility Holding Company Act, 143 Public works, 291 Military, 18 (p. 70) Public building construction, curtailment, 18 (p. 112) Pueblo, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [4] Puerto Rico Constitution, 104, 197 [11], 198 Elective governorship, proposed, 35 [15] Puerto Rico — Continued Self-government, growth of, 104 Purnell, Frank, 116 Putnam, Roger L., 118 n., 292 [9], 341, 345 [5]? 346 Putnam County Sentinel, Ottawa, Ohio, 319 [2] Radio, question of Government control, 107 [1,8,9] Radio-Television Manufacturers Association, 43 m Radioisotopes, 249, 333 Railroad Retirement Act, 18 (p. 105) Railroad Retirement Board, 18 (p. 105) Railroad Trainmen, Brotherhood of, 136 ftn. (P- 359) Railroads Army operation, 136 ftn. (p. 359) Termination, 141 Freight charges, 266 [2], 270 [5] Labor disputes, 136 [2, 14], 253 [2, 4] Retirement system, 213 Trust fund, 18 (pp. 104, 105), 231, 270 [5L 306 [6], 367 (p. 1156) St. Lawrence Seaway construction, oppo- sition to, 23 Unions, 37 Wages, 277 [5], 306 [6] Railway Conductors, Order of, 136 ftn. (P- 359) Railway Labor Act, 136 [2] Ramspeck, Robert, 59, 114, 117, 222, 223, 243, 338 Ramspeck Act (1940), 87 Randall, Clarence B., 88 [9], 116 Raw materials Exports, 55, 57, 179 Shortage, 179 Rayburn, Repr. Sam. See Speaker of the House of Representatives REA. See Rural Electrification Adminis- tration 1312 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Reading, Pa., campaign remarks, 303 [10] Real property, acquisition by Armed Forces, 18 (P. 71) Rearmament program, 98 [12], 349, 366 Europe, 55, 125 Receipts, Federal, 215 Recession (1949), 366, 376 Reciprocal Assistance, Inter- American Treaty of, 378 Reclamation, Bureau of, 18 (pp. 88, 89), 199, Reclamation Act of 1902, 388 Reclamation projects, 221 [15], 268 [2], 277 [3], 280 [1, 6], 367 (p. 1146), 376 Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 119 Activities in support of military services, _ 18 (P. 73) Business loans, 367 (pp. 1141-1142) Defense production loans, 18 (pp. 79, 80) Disaster relief loans, 18 (p. 100) News conference remarks, 31 [6] Reorganization, 18 (p. 116) Small business, assistance to, 15, 18 (p. 79) Tin, policy on, 2 [ 12, 14] Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Chair- man (W. Stuart Symington), 2 [4, 12] Records Act of 1950, Federal, 149 [16] Records management, Federal, 367 (pp. 1161-1162) Records of outgoing administration, custody and disposition, 334 [11, 15] Recreational facilities, 194 Red Bluff, Calif., campaign remarks, 277 [4] Red Cross, 50, 249 Disaster relief, 18 (p. 99) Fundraising campaign, 50 Red River, flood control, 109 Red River Valley, Indochina, 57 Red Wing, Minn., campaign remarks, 313 [2] Redding, Calif., campaign remarks, 277 [3] Redwood City, Calif., harbor improvement, 367 (p. 1 143) Reed, Repr. Daniel A., 361 Reese, Ben H., 98 [39] Refugee Organization, International, 65 Refugees and escapees Arab, U.S. aid for, 18 (p. 76) Assistance, 66 Message to Congress, 65 Australia, immigration to, 65 Canada, immigration to, 65 Communist bloc, 164, 244, 288, 297 Europe, 78, 145, 182 Latin America, immigration to, 65 Middle East, 367 (p. 1 140) Palestine, 297 Remarks to, 94 Service in U.S. and NATO forces, pro- posed, 65 U.S., immigration to, 65, 288 Regulation W, installment credit, 123 [18] Regulation X, housing credit, 123 [18] Reid, Gordon S., 262 n. Reiser, Carlton, 319 [3, 4] Relief programs overseas, 5, 50, 65, 88, 366 See also specific countries Religion, role in national life, 42, 330, 337 Religion and Welfare in the Armed Forces, President's Committee on, 297 Renegotiation Board, 18 (p. 112) Rent control, 18 (pp. yy, 79, 80), 33, 231, 273> 287> 300> 3°5> 321 l>L 322> 367 (p. 1154) Defense Production Act Amendments, 190 Reimposition, 15 Republican opposition, 218, 289 [11] Stabilization, 367 (p. 1141) Reorganization Act of 1949, n, 18 (pp. 112, 116), 84, 85, 86, 87, 114, 367 (p. 1 132) Reorganization plans, 287, 367 (p. 1132) No. 1, Bureau of Internal Revenue, 1, 2 [4, 11], 5, 11, 53,59, 84, 117 No. 2, Post Office Department, 84, 85, 115 [14], 117, 137 55-672— 66- i3!3 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Reorganization plans — Continued No. 3, Bureau of Customs, 84, 86, 117, 137 No. 4, Justice Department, 84, 87, 137 No. 5, District of Columbia government, 114 No. 26, Treasury Department (1950), 11 Senate action on, 175 [1] Summary, 84 Reports to the President Census Bureau, economic report, 363 Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation, 352 Commission on Immigration and Natu- ralization, 366 Materials Policy Commission, 179, 191, IQ2> 355 Mine disaster, Secretary Chapman's re- port, 19 Missouri Basin Survey Commission, 3 n. National Security Resources Board, Chair- man, 375 Republican National Convention, 267, 276, 278, 279, 283, 293, 303 [4, 6], 317 [3], 318, 320 Contest over nomination, 286 [4] Eisenhower, Gen. D wight D., views on, 197 [16] Liberal and conservative party wings, con- test between, 292 [8] Mac Arthur, Gen. Douglas A., appoint- ment as keynoter, 166 [2, 17], 175 [«] News conference remarks on, 197 [16] 1948 convention, 120 Republican Party, 129, 218 Campaign remarks on, 69, 218, 238 [14], 241, 242 [2], 247 [10, 12], 253 [6], 266 [1, 2, 10], 267, 268 [5], 269, 270 [8, 10], 272, 276, 278, 280 [3, 4, 6], 281, 284 [2, 6], 285, 286 [1, 3, 5, 6], 287, 288, 289 [1-4, 7-12], 290, 291, 292 [2-13], 293, 294, 295 [2, 3, 5-9], 296, 297, 298 [5], 304, 306 [3, 5, 7], Republican Party — Continued Campaign remarks on — Continued 3°7> 308 [7], 312, 313 [3]> 314. 3i5 [5]> 3^, 3*7 U-7L 3l8> 3i9 [h 4> 6], 320, 321 [5], 322, 334 [17] "Dixiecrats," alliance with, 318 Electoral victory, 334 [13], 342 [18] Foreign policy, criticism of, 69, 129, 242 [2] News conference remarks on, 156 [8], 197 [16, 19], 377 [21] Opposition to administration measures, 69, 213, 218, 240 [2], 241, 242, 266 [1-6, 9, 11, 13], 267, 268 [2-5, 7, 8], 269, 270 [1, 6, 8, 9, 10], 271, 272, 273, 274 [1-5], 276, 277 [1-3, 6], 278, 280 [1, 3, 4, 6], 281, 282 [1, 3, 4, 6, 8], 284 [5, 6], 285, 286, 287, 289, 290, 292 [3> 5> 9-!3]> 293, 294, 295 [3, 6, 7, 9], 296, 297, 298, 300, 303 [1, 2, 5, 9, 10], 304, 305, 306 [1, 4-7], 307- 319,321 [3, 6, 7], 322 Platform, 69, 123 [18], 218, 266 [4, 7, 9], 267, 268 [7, 8], 276, 277 [1, 3], 278, 280 [1, 3], 282 [6], 284 [6], 285, 286 [6], 288, 289 [1, 7], 292 [13], 295 [5l> 298 [12, 14], 299, 300, 301, 3°3 U> 9]> 3°4> 3°5> 3°6 [2, 6, 7], 307, 308 [8], 313 [1, 3, 4], 315 [1, 4L 3*7 [8], 321 [2] 1948, platform, 120 Research, 18 (pp. 100-103) Agricultural, 5, 18 (p. 92), 126, 267, 367 (p.1150) Atomic energy, 170, 275, 280 [4], 366, 367(^1146) Biology, 18 (p. 87) Coal industry, 305 Expenditures for, 231 General purpose, 367 (pp. 1155-1156) Medical, 18 (pp. 87, 106), 243, 249, 268 [81,333,367 (P- H57)>376 Military, 18 (p. 72), 275, 367 (p. 1137) J3i4 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Research — Continued Scientific, 5, 13, 18 (pp. 8y, 103), 218, 367 (p. 1 156) Synthetic liquid fuels, 18 (p. 89) Water desalination, 199 Reserve forces Call to active duty, 18 (p. 72) Coast Guard, 18 (p. 83) Expenditures for, 367 (p. 1 137) Increase in strength, 18 (p. 72), 367 (P-"37) Legislation, proposed, 18 (p. 71) Officers, appointment of, 38 Reserve Officers' Training Corps, 18 (p. 72) Resignations, letters Acheson, Dean, 380 Brannan, Charles F., 385 Chapman, Oscar, 384 Donaldson, Jesse M., 383 Lovett, Robert A., 371 McGranery, James P., 382 Sawyer, Charles, 374 Snyder, John W., 381 Tobin, Maurice J., 386 Wilson, Charles E., 70 Resources for Freedom, report of Materials Policy Commission, 191, 192 Retail sales, 33 Retirement, 69 Civil service, 231 Employees of international organizations, 207 Government employees, 18 (p. no), 367 (p. 1 163) Military personnel, 18 (p. 70), 367 (p. 1 136) Personal plans, the President's, 123 [9, 14, 22], 156 [9], 184, 228 [5, 10] Railroad, 213, 367 (p. 1156) Trust fund, 18 (pp. 104-106), 231, 270 [5], 306 [6], 367 (pp. 1158-1159) Retirement and Disability Fund, Civil Serv- ice, 367 (p. 1 163) Retirement Policy for Federal Personnel, Committee on, 367 (p. n 63) Reuther, Walter, 175 [16] Revenue Act of 195 1, 18 (p. 112), 231 Revercomb, William Chapman, 297, 300, 3^^3> U] Revolutionary War, 296, 366 RFC. See Reconstruction Finance Corpo- ration Rhee, Syngman, 156 [n] Voice of America broadcasts, prohibition, 166 [11] Rhode Island Campaign remarks, 298 [5], 299 Candidates for public office, 298 [5], 299 Gov. Dennis J. Roberts, 298 [5], 299 Rhodes, Repr. George M., 303 [10] Ribicofr", Repr. Abraham A., 292, 293, 298 [7-10] Richards, Repr. James P., 27 n., 107 [4], 217, 310, 358 Letters, 66, 67, 105, 180 Richardson, Robert O., 284 [4] Ridgway, Lt. Gen. Matthew B., 131, 136 [6], 144, 158, 169, 320 Denmark, endorsement of continued aid, 217 Distinguished Service Medal, 132 Korean armistice proposal, 121, 123 [20] Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, ap- pointment, 112, 113 Rifle, Colo., campaign remarks, 280 [5] Rio de Janeiro, 262 Rio Grande Valley, 97 Rio Pact (1947). See Inter- American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance River and harbor development, 18 (p. 83), 62, 270 [10], 271, 277 [3], 307, 366, 367 (pp. 1 143, 1 146), 376, 388 Appropriation, 109 Columbia River, 271 Connecticut River, 292 [7] 1315 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] River and harbor development — Continued Delaware River Port Authority, approval of bill, 209 Missouri, 3, 26 [23] St. Lawrence Seaway. See St. Lawrence Seaway See also Floods, control and relief; Water resources development Roanoke, Va., 242 [6] Roberts, Gov. Dennis J., 298 [5], 299 Robinson, O. P., 171 Rochester, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [2] Rockingham, N.H., campaign remarks, 295 [4] Rockwood, Pa., campaign remarks, 308 [5] Rodino, Repr. Peter W., 303 [3] Rodriguez, Sgt. Joseph C, Congressional Medal of Honor award, 24 Rogers, Repr. Byron G., 282 [7] Rogers, James Grafton, 362 n. Rolvaag, Karl F., 313 [5] Romagna, Jack, 253 [4], 345 [1] Rome, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [5] Rooney, Repr. John J., 300 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 26 [15], 63, 78, 107 [10], 130, 136 [17], 144, 174, 233 [7], 242 [2], 266 [10, 13], 277 [3], 278, 281, 283, 284 [5], 289 [1, 2, 5, n], 290, 291, 292 [1], 296, 298 [1, 8, 12, 14], 300, 303 [2], 305, 306 [1, 7], 307, 308 [2, 3l> 311 [i]> 3I2> 3!4> 3X5 Ul 3l8> 321 [2, 6], 366, 378 Roosevelt, Mrs. Franklin D., 129, 197 [3], 289 [5], 290, 378 Roosevelt, Theodore, 62, 78, 136 [17], 277 [1, 3], 280 [6], 312, 317 [3], 388 Roper, Elmo B., Jr., 143 Roper poll (1948), 129, 143 Rosenberg, Ethel, 377 ftn. (p. 1 192) Rosenberg, Julius, 377 ftn. (p. 1192) Ross, Charles, 63 Ross, Charles G., 45, 311 n. Rubber Act of 1948, 12 Rumania, American Action Committee Against Mass Deportations in, remarks, 145 Rural areas Electrification, 5, 18 (p. 92), 62, 126, 194, 218, 241, 242 [4], 266 [3-7, 9, 13], 267, 268 [2], 270 [10], 271, 274 [1], 277 [3> 6L 282 [3? 6> 8], 284 [4], 285, 295 [7l> 3°7> 3ii [2], 3*3 [2], 3*4> 3*5 [2]. 3IQ- UL 366> 367 (P- "49)> 388 Housing, 126 Telephone service, 266 [5, 7, 13], 267 [12], 274 [1], 285 Rural Electrification Administration, 18 (p. 92), 194, 266 [1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13], 267, 268 [2], 270 [10], 274 [1], 282 [3,61,285,314,315 [31,388 Rural Electrification Administrator (Claude R.Wickard),266[7] Rusk, Dr. Howard, 249 Russell, Bertrand, 123 [16] Russell, Sen. Richard B., 27 n., 162, 163, 166 [3L !75 [7l> x78, 217, 358 Letters, 66, 105, 180 Presidential candidacy, 31 [10], 127 [8] Ryan, James V., 305 Sabath, Repr. Adolph J., death of, 327 Safety. See Accident prevention St. Joseph, Mo., campaign remarks, 284 [4I St. Joseph (Mo.) News Press, 284 [4I St. Laurent, Louis, 23, 175 [7] St. Lawrence Seaway power project, 15, 21 [16], 44 [11], 62, 102, 175 [7], 189, 266 [2], 294, 295 [2], 298 [2, 3], 313 [6], 314, 317 [7] Canada, joint development with, 17 [27], 18 (p. 88), 23, 98 [32], 102, 175 [7], 189,367^.1147) Letter to President of Senate and Speaker of House, 189 1316 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] St. Lawrence Seaway power project — Con. Message to Congress, 23 1 94 1 Agreement, 23, 102 St. Louis, Mo., 158 Campaign remarks, 322 Mayor Joseph M. Darst, 322 St. Louis Post Dispatch, 26 [8], 45, 75 [5], 322 St. Paul, 182, 337 St. Paul, Minn., campaign remarks, 313 [4] Salaries. See Pay; Wages Salary Stabilization Board, 18 (p. 80) Salida, Colo., campaign remarks, 282 [2] Salt Lake City, Utah Mayor Earl J. Glade, 280 n. Campaign remarks, 280 [ 1 ] San Francisco, Calif. Campaign remarks, 278 Eisenhower rally in, 320 United Nations conferences (1945), 196, 378 San Juan, P.R., 104 Sandburg, Carl, "Abraham Lincoln," 136 [17] Sandpoint, Idaho, campaign remarks, 270 [10] Sandstone Creek watershed, Texas-Okla- homa, 194 Sargeant, Howland, 297 Sarratt, A. Reed, Jr., 98 [3] Satti,Dr.C.John,298[6] Saturday Evening Post, 143, 233 [2, 8], 282 [4] Savings, personal, 15, 148 Savings bonds. See Bonds, savings Scannell, Joseph S., 303 [ 1 ] Schenectady, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [8] Schoeppel, Sen. Andrew F., 129 Schools, 5 Construction, 18 (p. 102)5284 [6] Demand for, 237 Federal aid. See Education Schools — Continued Lunch program, 18 (p. 105) Schricker, Gov. Henry F., 286 [1-3], 311 [3]>3I2>321 [2] Schuman plan for European economic in- tegration, 5, 55, 131, 151, 366 Schwartz, Harold E., 57 Schwellenbach, Lewis B., 284 [5], 292 [11] Science, 179, 366 Achievements, 13, 81 Research, 5, 13, 18, 218, 367 (p. 1156) Science Foundation, National, 13, 18 (p. I03)> 367 (p. "55) Science Talent Search, 52 Scofield, Frank, resignation, 35 [9] Scott, Gen. Winfield, 7 [10], 21 [29], 282 [7], 287, 289 Scranton, Pa. Campaign remarks, 306 [ 1 ] Mayor James Hanlon, 306 n. Seattle, Wash., campaign remarks, 275 Secret Service, 255, 378 Securities and Exchange Commission, 31 [6], 3M Sedalia, Mo., campaign remarks, 284 [5] Selective Service Act, steel industry, provi- sions for operation of, 115 [13, 17], 166 [7] Selective Service System, 18 (p. 73), 187, 367(p.ii35) Selective Service System, Director (Maj. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey), 185, 187 Sengstacke, John H., 315 [6] Sermon on the Mount, 45, 63 Servicemen's Indemnity Act of 195 1, 367 (p. 1 160) Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 18 (p. 108) Servicemen's Voting Act of 1946, 68, 96 Sevilla-Sacasa, Guillermo, 115 [4] Seward, William H., 107 [10] SHAPE. See Supreme Headquarters Al- lied Powers Europe Shasta Dam, Calif., 277 [3, 4] W7 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Shatto, Sfc. James, 321 [4], 322 Shaw, G. Grafton, 362 n. Shelby, Mont., campaign remarks, 268 [7] Shell Oil Co., 58 Shenandoah, Iowa Campaign remarks, 285 Taft, Sen. Robert A., comment on remarks in, 291 Sherman, John, 127 [18], 136 [16] Sherman, Gen. William T., 115 [n] Shipping Authority, National, 18 (p. 81), 23^367 (P- "43) Ships Construction, 18 (p. 82), 211 Courier, VOA broadcast vessel, 54 Flying Enterprise, 29 n. Merchant, construction, 367 (pp. 1142- IJ43) Missouri, 255, 266 [4] Nuclear powered Nautilus, 170 Nautilus, gift of model to President, 171 n. Operation by National Shipping Author- ity, 367 (P- IJ43) Submarines, Soviet, containment in event of war, 217 Tanker, sale by Denmark to Soviet Union, 217 United States, 177, 197 ftn. (p. 470) Williamsburg, 255 See also Navy Shivers, Gov. Allan, 175 [17], 247 [3], 315 [6], 316 Shoemaker, Philip R., 308 [5, 6] Shoop, Duke, 149 [2] Short, Repr. Dewey, 312 Short, Joseph H., 2 [12, 19], 7 [1], 17 [7], 45. 49 [7. *5l 64 [h °]> 75 UL 9^ [1, 19], 107 [2, 5, 14, 16], 115 [4, 16], 136 n., 149 [7, 10], 197 [2], 228 [7], 238 [1], 242 [31,254 Sidney, Ohio, campaign remarks, 319 [3] Sieminski, Repr. Alfred D., 303 [2] Sinclair Oil Corp., 58 Skykomish, Wash., campaign remarks, 274 [3] "Skywatch Operation," Ground Observer Corps, 202, 344 Slattery, Edward E., Jr., 351 Sloan, William G., 98 [8] Sloan-Pick plan, Missouri valley develop- ment, 3, 98 [8] Slum clearance, 120, 273, 276, 278, 321 [2] See also Urban areas Small, John D., 7 ftn. (p. 19), 26 [1] Small business, 289 [2] Assistance to, 15, 18 (p. 79), 367 (p. 1142) Controls, exemptions from, 18 (p. 79) Credit, 215 Defense program, effect on, 15 Republican stand, campaign remarks on, 316 Small Defense Plants Administration, 15, 18 (pp. 79, 115) Smallpox, 249 Smazel, Clarence V., 317 [4] Smith, Alfred E., 289 [2], 296, 300, 303 Smith, Lt. Col. Charles B., 172 n. Smith, Gov. Forrest, 98 [13], 157, 158 Smith, Sen. H. Alexander, 303 [5], 310 Smith, John L., 10 1 Smith, Sen. Margaret Chase, 3 Smith, Merriman, 7 [7, 10], 21 [32], 31 [2], 35 [*5]> 49 [18], 64 [12], 88 [5, 22], 98 [22, 27, 28, 34], 127 [11], 136 [10] Smith, Gen. Walter B., 227, 296, 335 Smoot, I. A., 115 [7] Snake River, 18 (p. 88) Snohomish, Wash., campaign remarks, 274 [4] Sny Basin, Illinois, 367 (p. 1146) Snyder, John W. See Treasury, Secretary of the 1318 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Social security, 5, 18 (pp. 103-106), 69, 129, 135, 138, 241, 242 [3, 5], 266 [3], 268 [5]> 270 [5], 281, 284 [2], 289 [1], 291, 293, 298 [3], 300, 304, 306 [6], 317 [5], 3^i [6\ Benefits, extension of, 5, 167, 218, 273, 276, 278, 292 [12], 311 [1], 321 [2], 322, 376 Earning limit for eligibility, proposed in- crease, 17 [33 ] Expansion programs, subordination to defense needs, 15 Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1156- 1159) Health insurance under, proposed, 258 [9, 15], 268 [8], 278, 284 [5], 369 Insurance interests, opposition, 289 [3] Issue in election campaign, 278, 298 [14], 306 [1], 312, 313 [4] Payroll taxes. See Taxes Republican opposition, 218, 286 [5] Social Security Act, 18 (p. 103), 312 Amendments of 1952, approval, 213 Socialism, Republican charges against ad- ministration, 62, 69, 126, 253 [13], 289 [3], 291, 298 [2], 307, 312, 317 [3], 322 Socony Vacuum Oil Co., 58 Soil conservation, 5, 18 (p. 92), 126, 194, 215, 218, 241, 242 [4], 268 [2], 285, 291,311 [2], 313 [2], 315 [2], 366, 376, 388 Appropriations, 242 [4] Indian lands, 18 (p. 90) Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, 242 [4], 267, 285, 312 Soil Conservation Service, 18 (p. 92), 117, 367 (p. 1149) Sojourners, National, 134 n. Solicitor General (Philip B. Perlman), 290 Somers worth, N.H., campaign remarks, 295 M Somoza, Anastasio, visit of, 115 [4] Souers, Rear Adm. Sidney W., 340 South Carolina Democratic convention, 221 [6] Gov. James F. Byrnes, 64 [18], 98 [30], 221 [6], 303 [6], 304, 315 [6], 316 Judiciary, Federal Nominations, 166 [4] Vacancies, 44 [5] Poll tax, abolition of, 169 Republican Party support, question of, 253 [6] South Dakota, Gov. Sigurd Anderson, 97 Southeastern Power Administration, 18 (p. 89) Southwestern Gas and Electric Co., 194 Southwestern Power Administration, 18 (p. 89), 129 Souvenir hunting, American propensity for, 342 [19] Soviet Union, 63 Aggression against free world, 170, 217 Ambassador Georgi N. Zarubin, 166 [18] Anti-Zionist campaign in, 377 [28] Atomic bomb explosions, 5, 158, 366 Atomic energy control and development, 156 [10], 366 Atomic secrets, Rosenberg conspiracy for transmission to, 377 [10] Comments on, 233 [3], 366 Economic potential, 366 Forced labor in, 253 [ 1 ] Foreign policy, 57, 131, 144, 151, 196, 261, 316, 317 [2], 318, 319 [6], 320, 354. 3^6 Iran, removal of troops from, 107 [2, 11, 14, 16], 378 Military strength, 5, 158, 275, 366 Stalin, Joseph V., 123 [2] Submarines, containment in event of war, 217 Tanker, purchase from Denmark, 217 United Nations policies, 196 U.S. broadcasts, jamming of, 18 (p. 77) U.S. diplomats, restrictions on, 21 [25] 1319 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Soviet Union — Continued U.S. forces in Korea, influence on decision to withdraw, 320 U.S. loan to, question of, 64 [3] U.S. relations with, 54, 279 Vishinsky, Andrei Y., 5, 268 [5, 9], 269 n-> 27° [7L 3l8 See also Communist aggression and ex- pansion Spaatz, Gen. Carl A., 125 Spain Franco, Francisco, 31 [21] NATO, question of admission to, 31 [7] Sparkman, Sen. John J., 221 [6, 11], 224, 233 [7> "L 24° '[2], 241, 242 [3-5], 258 [n], 266, 268 [2,3,7,81,270 [1,5, 7, 8, 10], 272, 274 [1-5], 277 [2, 4-6], 280 [1, 3-6], 282 [1, 4, 6-8], 284 [1, 2, 4, 6], 285, 286 [1, 3, 5, 6], 289 [1, 2, 4-9], 292 [2, 3, 5, 7-10], 293, 294, 295 [1, 5, 7, 8], 298 [1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 14], 299, 300, 304, 305, 306 [2, 6], 308 [1-3, 5, 6], 311 [3l> 3I2> 3X3 l>-4> 6> I0L 3J5 [1,6], 317 [3, 6, 8], 318, 319 [1], 320, 321 [2, 5-7], 322, 324 Speaker of the House of Representatives (Sam Rayburn), 2 [1, 16], 32, 45, 49 [1, 5, 7], 51 n., 68, 69, 125, 143 n., 144, 161, 218 n., 225 n., 314, 361, 378 Letters. See Congress, letters to Members of Spence, Repr. Brent, 120, 190, 320 Spending by Government, 367 (pp. 1129- 1130) Defense, 15, 17 [2, 34], 18 (p. 69), 89 [4], 215, 231, 295 [1], 289, 317 [2, 3], 318, 3J9 [5], 353 [3L 367 (PP- XI35- ii38),368,376 Policy on, 367 (pp. 1131-1132) Reduction, 15, 17 [19], 18 (pp. 64, 65), 215, 231, 275, 295 [1], 318, 319 [5] See also Budget; Deficit spending Spingarn, Stephen J., letter, 357 Spokane, Wash., campaign remarks, 272 Spring Valley Canal, Mont., 80 Springfield, Mass., campaign remarks, 292 [9] Spruance, Adm. Raymond A., 142 Stabilization Agency, Economic, 346 Stack, John, 351 n. Staggers, Harley O., 242 [5, 6, 8] Stalin, Joseph V., 107 [14, 16], 123 [2], 366, 378 Stamford, Conn., campaign remarks, 298 [»] Standard of living, U.S., 5, 15, 63, 69, 81, 101, 126, 215, 266 [2], 272, 276, 283, 284 [4], 295 [6, 7], 300, 303 [2, 4], 304, 3^339. 349. 3^ 366> 376 Standard Oil Co. (Ind.), 58 Standards, National Bureau of, 367 (p. 1155) Stanley, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [9] Starch, Elmer, 57 Stassen, Harold, 7 [7] State, Department of, 55, 79, 81, 166 [n], 246, 257, 296,310 "Forced Labor in the Soviet Union," booklet, 253 [1] Japan, information program in, 18 (p. 77) Loyalty of officials and employees, Repub- lican attacks on, 320 Mexican migrant workers in U.S., negotia- tions concerning, 2 [5] Stevenson, Adlai, service in, 317 [4] Technical assistance functions, i8(p. 115) U.S. forces in Korea, role in decision to withdraw, 316, 320 State, Secretary of (Dean Acheson), 6, 23 n., 27, 48, 49 [17], 81 n., 98 [37], 107 [2], 115 [6, 15], 128, 149 [8, 10], 158, 279, 292 [4, 111,310,331,366,378 Brazil, proposed visit to, 166 [14] Denmark, endorsement of continued aid to, 217 1320 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] State, Secretary of (Dean Acheson) — Con. Foreign travel procedures, question of tightening, 197 [10] Germany, conventions on relations with, Korean policy statement (1950), 316 Letter, 76 Memorandums to George C. Marshall Research Foun- dation, Inc., organization, 387 John Carter Vincent loyalty case, 362 n. Resignation, 238 [1], 377 [15], 380 Vice Chairmanship of Hoover Commis- si^ 377 [30] Vincent loyalty case, 353 [14], 362 n. State Civil Defense Directors, National As- sociation of, 353 [3] State Tuberculosis Hospital, Galen, Mont., 268 [8] State of the Union Message, 2 [1, 16], 5, 366 State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee, 323 n. Statehood for Hawaii and Alaska, proposed, 5> 35 [15L 49 [8], 149 [i5]? 274 [5] Statements by the President Armed Forces in Korea, withdrawal (1947-1949), 310, 323 Budget review, 23 1 Christian Citizenship, Crusade for, 39 Civil defense, anniversary of Federal legislation, 9 Civil Service, 69th anniversary, 14 Clark, Gen. Mark W., appointment to U.N. Command, Korea, 113 Continental shelf, naval petroleum reserve, 379 Czechoslovakia, Communist control of, 4th anniversary, 47 Dairy products, restrictions on imports of, 360 Da Vinci, Leonardo, 500th anniversary of birth, 89 Statements by the President — Continued Draft deferment policy, 185 Filberts, shelled, importation of, 302 George VI, King, death of, 30 Germany, European Defense Community, progress toward acceptance of, 343 Green, William, death of, 336 Ground Observer Corps, "Operation Sky- watch," 202, 344 Health Needs of the Nation, Commission on the, report, 352 Immigration and Naturalization, Presi- dent's Commission on, report, 373 Immigration to U.S., Republican position on, 301 Imports Dairy products, 360 Filberts, shelled, 302 Inter- American Affairs, Institute of, 10th anniversary, 72 Internal Revenue, Bureau of, reorganiza- tion, 1 Japan, termination of state of war with, in Jewish New Year, 235 Korea Armed forces withdrawal, 310, 323 Armistice proposal by General Ridg- way, 121 United Nations command, appointment of General Clark, 1 13 Labor Day, 237 Materials Policy Commission, report, 191 McMahon, Sen. Brien, death of, 219 Memorial Day, 139 Missouri Basin Survey Commission, 3, 32 Niles, David K., death of, 265 Olympic National Park, enlargement, 365 "Operation Skywatch," 202, 344 President-elect Eisenhower Election victory, 325 Joint statement with, 331 132 1 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Statements by the President — Continued Public debt, fluctuations during term, 368 Ridgway, Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Korean armistice proposal, 121 NATO command appointment, 112 Sabath, Repr. Adolph J., death of, 327 Short, Joseph H., death of, 254 Steel labor dispute, settlement, 216 See also Legislation, statements upon ap- proval States Absentee voting for military personnel, 68, 96, 124 Agricultural research stations, 267 Antilynching laws, 290 Colleges and universities, admission of Negroes, 290 Deficit spending, 15 Employees, 213, 290 "Fair-trade" laws, 204 Federal aid. See Federal aid to States Federal real estate acquisitions in, 18 (P- 71) Housing, laws against discrimination in, 290 Industrial safety programs, 206, 367 (p.1151) School facilities, 18 (p. 101), 284 [6] Southern, economic and social develop- ment, 194 Statistical Agencies, Task Force on, 18 (P. n6) Statistics, collection of, 18 (pp. 92, 116) Steinemann, George C, 311 [1] Steel Exports to U.K., agreement on, 6 n. Prices, 70, 83, no, 118, 129 Production, 23, 82, 103, 107 [2], 116, 118, 161, 166 [5], 175 [16], 282 [4] Steel industry Capacity, 5, 15 Steel industry — Continued Labor dispute, 64 [4], 70, 75 [10], 82, 88 [3> 5L II0> IJ5 [*> 5> 8> I0> I2> *3> 16, 17, 19], 123 [2, 4], 129, 136 [3], x56 UL *59> l6l> l66 [i> 5> 7l> x75 [12, 16], 197 [2], 215, 231, 233 [5], 242 [5] Address to American people, question of, 115 [10] Government operation, 82, 83, 88 [13], 98 [J4> 25L i°3> I07 0> I2L II0> 118, 156 [4], 161, 175 [16] Injunction, question of use, 115 [12] Meeting with management and labor leaders, 118 Message to Congress, 83 Settlement, 216 Telegram to management and union leaders, 116 Profits, 82, 88 [6], no, 129 Taxes, no Wages, 70, 82, 88 [5, 13], no, 129 Steelman, John R., 12 n., 45, 122, 136 [2], 187, 245, 292 [n] See also Defense Mobilization, Director (John R. Steelman) Steel workers of America, United, 22, 116 n., 118 n., 216 Stevenson, Gov. Adlai E., 21 [2, 3, 13], 49 [6], 97> 98 [4]. x97 l>]> 23°> 268 n-> 289 n., 290 n., 291 n., 325 Byrnes, Gov. James F., support by, 221 [6] Cabinet meeting, invitation to attend, 221 [12], 228 [3>7>I21 Democratic Party, leadership, 334 [4] Government service in World War II, 289 [5] Italian rehabilitation mission (1943), 291, 292 [1] Meeting with the President, 224, 253 [9], 342 [2,8, 12, 18], 334 [4] 1322 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Stevenson, Gov. Adlai E. — Continued Presidential candidacy, 21 [5, 13], 49 [6], 75 [11], 88 [18], 98 [4], 115 [3], 136 [8, 11, 18], 166 [16], 218, 221 [6, 12, 14], 227, 228 [3, 7, 12], 233 [4, 7, 11, 17], 238 [3, 8], 240 [1, 2], 241, 242, 247 [1], 253 [3, 8, 9, 11, 12], 258 [11, 12], 266, 268-270 [1, 5-10], 271-300, 303-308, 311-322, 324 Record in office, 290, 304 United Nations, contribution to, 289 [5] Washington, remarks on crime in, 233 [4], 238 [3] Stimson, Henry L., 289 [5] Stoltz, Mildred K., 268 [8] Stone, Harlan F., 378 Straat, Parker E., 181 n. Strategic and critical materials Allocation, 367 (p. 1141) Controls, 15, 190 Embargo on shipment to Communist bloc, 105, 180, 217, 358 Geological surveys for, 18 (p. 89) Imports, 15 Mutual assistance, U.S.-U.K., 6 Prices, 15 Production, 15, 18 (p. 77) Report of Materials Policy Commission, 191, 192 Shortage, 17 [17,31] Stockpiling, 12, 15, 18 (p. 72), 33, 231, 367 (pp. 1 138, 1 154) Trade in, 105, 180, 217, 358 Student Citizenship Seminar, 183 Students Military deferment, 18 (p. 103) Scholarships and loans for, proposed, 18 (p. 103), 231 Subsidies, Federal Aviation, 18 (p. 84), 367 (p. 1144) Merchant marine, 18 (p. 82), 367 (pp. 1142-1143) Shipbuilding, 211 Sugar Act, 367 (p. 1148) Sullivan, Charles F. Jeff, 292 n. Sullivan, John L., 292 [5] Sullivan, William, 274 [3] Sun River, Mont., irrigation project, 80 Sunday Sun, Lowell, Mass., 292 [ 12] Supplemental appropriation acts, 103 Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1953, ap- proval, 205 Supreme Court of the United States, 127 [10], 129, 161, 169, 238 [8], 266 [9, 10], 270 [5], 314, 321 [2] Decisions Business price-fixing agreements, 204 Housing, prohibition of restrictive covenants, 290 Negroes, admission to State colleges and universities, 290 Steel industry seizure, 123 [4], 136 [3, 17, 18], 156 [4], 161, 175 [16] Tidelands oil, 293, 317 [3] Justice Felix Frankfurter, question of resignation, 342 [6] News conference remarks, 123 [4], 127 [10], 136 [3, 17, 19], 238 [8] Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe, 217 Surplus property, disposition of defense housing units, 367 (p. 1154) Symington, W. Stuart, 2 [4, 12], 7 [6], 31 [6], 35 [6], 75 [6], 79. *49 [3]. 221 [5], 284 [4, 5], 322 Synagogues, bombing of, 290 Syracuse, N.Y. Campaign remarks, 289 [3] Mayor Thomas Corcoran, 289 [3] Sweden Dairy products, restrictions on imports to U.S., 360 Er lander, Tage, 98 [37] Korean armistice commission member- ship, 121 1323 Index [Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated] Sweden — Continued Korean prisoner-of-war camps uprising, question of investigation by, 162 Switzerland Korean armistice commission membership, 121 Korean prisoner-of-war camps uprising, question of investigation by, 162 Taber, H.A.W., 282 [1] Taber, Repr. John, 298 [1], 312, 334 [11] Table Rock Dam, Mo., 194 Tacoma, Wash., campaign remarks, 276 Taft, Charles P., 253 [8] Taft, Sen. Robert A. Administration legislative program, com- ment on, 359 [9] Budget, views on balancing, 334 [17] Campaign issues, unity with Gen. Eisen- hower on, 286 [8], 292 [2-5], 317 [3] Campaign remarks on, 242 [1], 258 [7], 266 [2, 3], 268 [7], 270 [5], 275, 276, 277 [1-5], 280 [3L 281, 283, 284 [2, 6], 285, 286 [4], 289 [8, 11], 291- 293> 295 [5-9L 298 [6-12], 303 [6], 304, 306 [1, 2, 4], 304, 308 [2, 3], 312,313 [4, 6], 315 [41,317,319 [5], 320, 321 [3], 322, 377 [18] Defense spending reduction proposed, 289 Full employment bill, opposition to, 317 [5] Housing bill. See Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing bill Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticism of, 35 [8, 14] Korean war, criticism of, 35 [10] Labor act. See Taft-Hartley Act Meeting with Gen. Eisenhower, 291, 303 [4] News conference remarks on, 7 [5, 7, 10], 149 [20], 156 [8], 166 [6], 253 [8, !3L258 [7]>342 l>] Postwar economy, views on, 292 [10] Taft, Sen. Robert A. — Continued Presidential candidacy, 7 [5, 7, 10], 35 [8], 149 [20], 242 [1] Price supports, position on, 267 Republican leadership role, 289 [3], 292 [8, 10] Taft, William H., 295 [7] Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing bill, 120 Taft-Hartley Act, 5, no, 129, 215, 218, 241, 258 [7], 266 [3], 277 [5], 286 [8], 298 [3L 299, 300> 3°3 U> 9> I0L 3°6 [2, 6], 307, 308 [1, 2], 313 [4], 314, 3*5 [h 2], 321 [2], 322 Effect on labor unions, 292 [13] Effect on New England economy, 294 Invocation in labor disputes, question of, 37, 82, 103, 107 [12], 110, 123 [6], 148, 156 [4], 161, 166 [1], 175 [12, 16], 312 Republican endorsement, 218, 289 [n], 317 [5] Taiwan. See Formosa (Taiwan) Talbot, Tom, 319 [5, 6] Tandy, Delores, 173 n. Tariff Act of 1930, 239 Tariff Commission, United States, 239, 359 [15] Tariffs, 115 [6], 203, 239, 266 [2], 302 Task Force Smith, campaign remarks, 172 Task Force on Statistical Agencies, 18 (p. 116) Taunton, Mass., remarks at, 298 [2] Tauriello, Anthony F., 288 n. Tax Court, U.S., vacancy on, 35 [4] Taxes, 17 [7], 101, 117, 158, 272, 277 [5], 287> 3°7> 3M Budget recommendations, 367 (pp. 1132- 1133) Collection system, administration, 18 (p. 112) Cooperatives, 62, 267 Corporate, no, 231, 367 (p. 1132) Deductions, 127 [7, 9] 1324 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Taxes — Continued Delinquent, expenditures for collection, 367(^1161) Excess profits, 367 (p. 1132) Excise, 33 Expense allowances for President, Vice President, and Speaker of House, 361 Income, 110,231 Increase, 5, 11, 15, 17 [34], 18 (p. 80), 33, 215, 293, 349, 367 (p. 1 132), 376 Internal Revenue collectorships, proposed civil service status, 1, 2 [13], 117 Legislation, proposed, 18 (p. 67), 367 (p. 1 132) Local improvements, use to finance, 209 Loopholes and special privileges, elimi- nation, 5, 15 Merchant marine, tax concessions, 18 (p. 82), 211, 226 Payroll, 17 [26], 18 (pp. 95, 104, 113) Poll taxes, elimination proposed, 290 Railroad, transfer of receipts to retirement trust fund, 231 Receipts, 11, 17 [2, 24], 231 Reduction, 170, 175 [2, 6], 283, 295 [8], 3*3 [5], 3*9 [5L 334 [17]. 3^8 Republican stand on, 289 [2, 11], 319 [5], 334 [17] Returns, inspection by congressional com- mittees, 64 [6], 91 Taylor, J. E., 21 [6], 149 [3], 156 [1], 221 ftn. (p. 511) Taylor, Jack, 274 [2] Taylor, Zachary, 282 [7], 289 Taylorville, 111., campaign remarks, 321 [5] Teacher of the Year award, presentation, 133 Teachers Exchange programs, 234 Salaries, 284 [6] Shortage, 284 [6] Teapot Dome oil scandal, 69, 129, 143, 277 [1] Technical assistance to less developed coun- tries and new nations, 18 (p. 74), 20, 55> 57> 72> 8l> I0I> l69> 28l> 354> 367 (p.1139) Arab states, 18 (p. 76) Asia, 18 (p. 76) Indonesia, 18 (p. 76) Iran, 18 (p. 76) Israel, 18 (p. 76) Latin America, 18 (p. 76), 367 (p. 1140) Middle East, 18 (p. 76) State Department functions, 18 (p. 115) United Nations program, 18 (p. 77) See also Point 4 program Technical Cooperation Administration, 18 (P- H5)> 55 Technological progress, 33, 179 Telephone service, rural, 266 [5, 7, 13], 274 [11,285,367 (p. 1 149) Television, 274 [5] Congressional hearings, question of use in, 49 [7] Election campaigns, role in, 26 [28], 166 [13] Stations, proposed halt to construction of, 26 [13] Tello, Manuel, 2 [5] Tennessee Droughts, 221 [1] Gov. Gordon Browning, 221 [1] Poll tax, abolition of, 169 Tennessee River Basin power projects, 294 Tennessee Valley Authority, 18 (p. 88), 62, 117, 129, 143, 194, 267, 271, 277 [3, 6], 298 [2], 388 Appointment of chairman, question of, 26 [26] Appropriations, 147 Steam powerplants, 367 (p. 1146) Tennessee Valley Authority, Chairman (Gordon R. Clapp), 144 1325 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Tennyson, Alfred, "Locksley Hall," 125 Terre Haute, Ind., campaign remarks, 321 Texas Admission into Union, 107 [10] Candidates for public office, 98 [33], 238 [5] Delegation at Democratic National Con- vention, 197 [15] Flood control, 194 Gov. Allan Shivers, 175 [17], 315 [6], 316 Endorsement of General Eisenhower, 247 [3] Natural gas, export to Canada, 377 [25] Offshore lands, 146, 377 [n] Texas, Republic of, 149 [4] Texas Oil Co., 58 Textiles, decrease in consumer demand, Thailand, assistance, 55 Theater Owners Convention, remarks, 250 Thirty-fifth Division, reunion, 157, 158 Thomas, Elbert D., 281, 322 Thompsonville, Conn., campaign remarks, 292 [8] Thurmond, J. Strom, 35 [7] Thyroid diseases, 333 Tiber Dam, Mont., campaign remarks, 269 Timberman, Brig. Gen. T. S., 310 Tioga, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [10] Tin Bolivian, 2 [8, 14], 26 [14] Imports from U.K., agreement on, 6 n. RFC policy on, 2 [12] Tito, Josip Broz, 107 [14] Tobin, Maurice J., 292 n. Toledo, Ohio, campaign remarks, 319 [1] Tombstone, Ariz. Epitaph of Jack Williams, 98 [2], 123 [12] Mayor Wally C. Foster, 123 [12] Tongass National Forest, Alaska, Japanese logging operations in, 247 [n] Topeka, Kans., flood control, 18 (p. 88) Toronto Reservoir, Kansas, 367 (p. 1146) Torp, Oscar, visit of, 258 [10] Totalitarianism, "big lie" technique, 251 Trade, international, 366 Campaign remarks, 285 Communist bloc, 105, 180, 203 Danish-Soviet, 217 Liberalization, 190, 215 Policy study by Public Advisory Board for Mutual Security Program, 203 Raw materials, 179 Reciprocal agreements, 307, 322 Escape clauses, 10 U.S.- Venezuela, 239 See also Balance of payments; Exports; Imports; Tariffs; Trade Agreements Act; specific commodities Trade Agreements Act, expiration, 203 Trade Agreements Committee, 10 Trade Agreements Extension Act of 195 1, 10, 239 Trades and Labor Assembly, New York, 237 Training Commission, National Security, 18 (P. 73) Transportation Air, 18 (p. 83) Federal programs, 5, 18 (p. 81), 209, 231, 367 (pp.1142-1 144) Five-year censuses of, 367 (p. 1156) Freight charges, 266 [2], 270 [5] Immigrants to U.S., 182 Land, 18 (p. 84) Marine, 367 (pp. 1142-1143) Mexico, air service to, 246 Water, 18 (pp. 81-83) Travel The President's plans, 31 [11], 49 [14, 18], 64 [7], 88 [20, 21], 123 [15], 127 [3]? 378 1326 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Travel — Continued U.S. citizens abroad, State Department procedures governing, 197 [10] Travis Air Force Base, Calif., 135 Treasury, Department of the, 1 1, 86, 211, 225, 226, 255 Debt management operations, 15 Reorganization, 11, 84 Treasury, Secretary of the (John W. Sny- der), 6, 27, 48, 193, 226, 255, 292 n., 331, 156 ftn. (p. 403) Budget news conference, 17 Campaign remarks on, 292 [11] Letter, 225 News conference remarks on, 31 [17] Resignation, 381 Treaties and executive agreements, proposed legislation, 140 Trenton, N.J., campaign remarks, 303 [6] Trieste Communism in, 107 [2] Population growth, 65 Trimble, Repr. James W., 32, 193 n., 194 Troy, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [8] Troy, Ohio, campaign remarks, 319 [4] Troy, Smith, 274 [5] Truman, Harry S., Library, 334 ftn. (p. 1059) Truman, Harry S., personal reminiscences Accession to Presidency, 366, 378 Congressional Medal of Honor presenta- tions, 125 Editorship of high school paper, 63 Election campaigns, 125, 126, 129, 143, 193. 321 [3] Farming experiences, 194, 315 [ 1 ] Friendship with Senator Vandenberg, 317 [2] Military service World War 1, 125, 377 [2] World War II, offer to serve in, 135 Montgomery, Gen. Bernard L., visit to White House, 250 Truman, Harry S., personal reminiscences — Continued Nephew and family, visit to Washington, 183 Political career, 89 [12], 117, 142, 292 [ii], 3i7 [5, 8] Political conventions, 63, 218 Roosevelt, Franklin D., meetings with, 130 Schooldays, anecdote from, 268 [5] Senate service, 318, 377 [12] Chairmanship of Truman Committee, 158, 289 [8], 377 [2] Veterans hospitals, visits to, 135 Truman, Mrs. Harry S., 2 [2], 7 [10], 29, 73, 74 n., 125, 197 [14], 258 [11, 14], 262, 377 [15], 378 Truman, Margaret, 73, 78 n., 115 [4], 125, 149 [13], 156 [14], 197 [14], 233 [1, 6, 9], 258 [10], 266 [1], 269 n., 270 [2, 4]. 308 [6], 314, 319 [1], 377 [15, 19] Truman Committee, 158, 289 [8], 377 [2] Trust funds, 231 Civil service retirement, 18 (pp. 106, 113) Interest accruals, 18 (p. 114) Life insurance, veterans, 367 (p. 1160) Old age and survivors insurance, 18 (pp. io4,io6),367(p.ii59) Railroad retirement, 18 (pp. 104, 106), 231,367 (pp. 1156,1159) Unemployment compensation, 18 (p. 95), 367 (pp. 1151,1159) Veterans life insurance, 18 (p. no) Truth Squad, Republican, 291 Tubby, Roger, 253 [2, 4], 345 [4], 359 [4] Tuberculosis, 249 Turkey Assistance, 18 (p. 75), 27, 55, 57, 75, 81, 242 [2], 288, 317 [2], 354, 366 Communism in, 69, 107 [2], 303 [2], 354, 378 Filberts, shelled, exportation of, 302 Immigration to U.S., 182 NATO membership, 5, 8, 18 (p. 76), 77 I327 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Tuttle Creek Dam, Kansas, 18 (p. 88) TVA. See Tennessee Valley Authority Twain, Mark, 129 Tydings, Millard E., 69 n., 322 Tyler, John, 107 [10] Un-American Activities Committee, 49 [7] Unemployment, 242 [6] Coal industry, 305 Decrease, 15, 215, 349 Depressions and recessions. See Econ- omy, national Insurance. See Unemployment compen- sation New England, 294 Unemployment compensation, 18 (p. 93), 215, 237, 241, 292 [5], 293, 298 [3], 306 [6] Government employees, 18 (p. 113), 108, *37 State programs, Federal aid, 15, 231, 367 (pp. 1150-1151) Trust fund, 18 (p. 95)5367 (p. 1151) Veterans, 231, 367 (p. 1160) Unit rule, national party conventions, 98 [41 ] United Defense Fund, 264 United Kingdom, 38 Assistance, 27, 358 Balance of payments, 15, 18 (p. 75) Churchill, Winston, 2 [7, 10, 17], 4, 5, 6, 7 [8], 16, 17 [22], 149 [10], 359 [20] Economic mission to U.S., question of, 247 [6] Eden, Anthony, 6 Exchange teachers, remarks, 234 Germany, conventions on relations with, Investments in U.S., 218 Iran, oil dispute with, 5, 6 Jay Treaty, 45 Jewish immigrants to Palestine, entry per- mits, 297 United Kingdom — Continued King George VI, death of, 30, 31 [19] Meat, availability of, 57 NATO participation, 358 Queen Elizabeth II, 30, 74 Coronation, 342 [13] Steel purchases from U.S., question of, 6 Strategic materials, exports to Communist bloc, 358 U.S. bases in, 6 U.S. relations with, 4 World Wars, financial drain on, 218 United Mine Workers of America, 341 United Nations, 69, 78, 101, 188, 284 [4], 299> 3I0> 320> 322 Atomic energy control, 170 Campaign remarks, 281 Children's programs, 51 Disarmament efforts, 5, 170, 196 Economic and technical assistance pro- grams, 18 (p. 77), 55, 196 Forced labor in Soviet Union, investiga- tion, 253 [1] Founding, role of Adlai Stevenson, 289 [5], 292 [1], 317 [4] Korean police action (1950-53). See Korean war Partisan attacks on, 197 [3] Refugee agency, U.S. contribution, 367 (p.1140) San Francisco conference, 196, 378 Soviet policy in, 5, 196, 318, 366 Tunisia, debate on, 98 [35] U.S. participation and support, 18 (p. 77), 6l> 75 l>]> 77> 98 [l6L T44> *96> T97 [3], 218, 259, 279, 316, 317 [2], 354, 366, 378 United Nations Charter, 6, 55, 61, in, 131, 144, 151, 196, 354, 366 United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, U.S. contribution, 51 United Nations Day, National Citizens' Committee on, 259 1328 Index [Main references are to items United Nations Disarmament Commission, 196 United Nations General Assembly, 196 Resolution on elections in Korea (1947), 323 U.S. delegation, service of Adlai Steven- son, 289 [5] United Nations Participation Act of 1945, 196 United Service Organizations, 264, 297 United States, SS, sale of, 177, 197 ftn. (p. 470) United States Attorney, Nevada, commis- sion for, 377 [22] United States Attorneys Association, re- marks to, 165 United States-Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defense, 23 United States Coast Guard Academy, ad- dress, 255 United States Lines Co., 177 United States Marshals, transfer to civil serv- ice, 87 United States Military Academy, 142 Luncheon remarks, 130 Sesquicentennial convocation address, 131 United States Naval Academy, remarks at, 130, 142 United States Steel Corp., no United States Supreme Court. See Supreme Court of the United States United States Tariff Commission, 239 United Steel workers of America, 22, 116 n., 118 n., 216 Universal military training, 18 (p. 72) Uranium, production increase, 280 [4] Urban areas Airports, study of location and use, 40 Slum clearance, 18 (pp. 95, 99), 293, 367 (p.1154) U.S. News and World Report magazine, 277[i]>295[7l>3i5[3] USO. See United Service Organizations except as otherwise indicated] Utah Campaign remarks, 280 [1-3], 281 Candidates for public office, 280 [ 1, 3] Floods, control and relief, 127 [5] Power project, 367 (p. 1146) Primary elections, 21 [10] Utica, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [6] Vaccaro, Ernest B., 7 [10], 44 [12], 64 [10], 98 [36], 107 [9], 123 [1], 197 [1], 233 [7, 11, 12, 13], 247 [1], 345 [1, 4], 377 [1, 5, 20] Valentine, Alan, 118 Van Buren, Martin, 78 Vandenberg, Arthur H., 23, 242 [2], 259, 268 [5], 283, 291 n., 292 n., 295 [8], 298 [8], 307, 317 [2], 318, 322 Vandenberg, Gen. Hoyt S., 44 [3], 128, 320 Van der Veer, McClellan, 98 [15] Van Fleet, Lt. Gen. James A., 295 [8], 320 Vatican, U.S. representation at, question of, 21 [7L 49 OL 75 l>L 228 [4] Vaughan, Maj. Gen. Harry H., 64 [15], 75 [5] Vegetables, exemption from price control, 190 Venereal disease, 249 Venezuela Iron ore deposits, 175 ftn. (p. 433) Petroleum products, importation, 239 Trade agreement with, 239 Veterans Benefits. See Veterans benefits Disabled, 5, 135, 138, 243 Employment, 137 Growth in number of, 18 (p. 107), 367 (p.1159) Hospitals 367 (p. 1 160) Housing, 367 (pp. 1 152, 1 153) Negro, discrimination against, 290 Veterans Administration, 18 (p. 98), 31 [3, 16], 117, 138,243,249,333 Appropriations, 135 1329 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Veterans Administration — Continued Facility at Fort Logan, Colo., disapproval, 212 Reorganization, 18 (p. 116) Voluntary Services ceremonies, address, 135 Veterans Affairs, Administrator of (Carl R. Gray, Jr.), 31 [3> l6L J35 Veterans benefits, 18 (pp. 107, no), 138, 231, 376 Disability compensation, 18 (pp. 109, no) Education, 18 (p. 108), 231, 366 Expenditures for, 367 (pp. 1159-1161) Housing, 18 (p. 98), 231, 366 Insurance, 5, 18 (p. 109), 367 (p. 1160) Liberalization, 367 (p. 1159) Loan guarantees, 231, 366 Medical care, 18 (pp. 107, no), 135, 212, 333 Occupational training, 18 (p. 108), 243 Pensions, 18 (p. 109), 138, 367 (p. 1160) Readjustment assistance, 18 (p. 108), 231, 367 (p. 1 160) Unemployment compensation, 231, 367 (pp. 1 150, 1 160) Veterans of Foreign Wars, award dinner, 29 Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1952, 231, 367 (pp. 1 150, 1 160) Veto Messages and Memorandums of Dis- approval Greenfields Division, Sun River irrigation project, Montana, 80 Immigration and Nationality Act, revi- sion, 182 Offshore lands, cession to States, 146 Panama Canal employees, compensation claims, 208 Post office quarters, leasing by Postmaster General, 214 Veterans Administration facility, Fort Logan, Colo., 212 Veto Messages and Memorandums of Dis- approval— Continued For citations to private bills {not included in this volume), see Appendix A un- der j olio wing dates: May 21 June 30 Vice Presidency, expense allowances for, 361 Vice President (Alben W. Barkley), 2 [1], 32, 51 n., 68, 69, 127 [1], 131, 143 n., 144, 159 n., 161, 218, 221 [9], 266 n., 281, 324 Letters to President of Senate. See Con- gress, letters to Members of St. Lawrence Seaway project, resolution concerning (1945-46), 23 Videla, Gabriel Gonzalez, 123 [13] Vincennes, Ind., campaign remarks, 321 [1] Vincent, John Carter, 353 [12, 14], 359 [3], 362 n. Vinson, Repr. Carl, 27 n., 66y 105, 180, 217, 358 Virginia Military Institute, 242 [3], 387 Vishinsky, Andrei Y., 5, 268 [5, 9], 269 n., 270 [7], 318 Visitors, foreign leaders Churchill, Winston, 2 [7, 10, 17], 4, 7 [8], 359 l>°] Drees, Willem, 21 [21] Erlander, Tage, 98 [37] Figl, Leopold, 127 [14] Juliana, Queen, 73, 74 Somoza, Anastasio, 115 [4] Torp, Oscar, 258 [10] Visits abroad Comments on, 378 Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II, ques- tion of attendance, 342 [13] Korea, proposed, 345 [2, 4] Vocational training. See Occupational train- ing 1330 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Voice of America, 5, 54, 166 [11], 242 [2], 367(p.n4i) Voice of Democracy contest, remarks to win- ners, 43 Voluntary Credit Restraint Program, 15 Voting rights, 169 Armed forces, 38 Duty to exercise, 221 [2], 277 [2], 280 [5], 282 [2, 6], 295 [2], 298 [5] Military personnel, 68, 96, 124 Negroes, 290 Poll taxes, elimination of, 290 Wage controls, 5, 15, 18 (pp. 77, 80), 190, 218, 231, 305, 342 [7], 376 Campaign remarks, 287 Republican opposition to, 292 [9] Wage Policy Committee, National, 216 Wage Stabilization Board, 15, 18 (p. 80), 22, 37, 58, 64 [14], 70, 88 [5,7], no, 148, 161, 215, 341, 345 [5], 346 Labor dispute mediation functions, 82, 190 Wage Stabilization Board, Chairman (Archi- bald Cox), resignation, 342 [4] Wage Stabilization Board, Chairman (Na- than P. Feinsinger), 22, 58 Wages, 5, 15, 69, 241, 272, 282 [8], 294, 298 [3L 3^, 3M> 321 [5] Coal miners, 341, 342 [7] Increase, distribution, 15, 82, 194, 215, 277 [5l> 3!4> 3X5 0] Industrial, 215 Minimum, 215, 289 [1], 291, 292 [5], 294 Railroad employees, 277 [5] Stabilization, 15, 33, 70, 82, 118, 129, 148, 161,346,367 (p. 1141) Standards, 218 Statistical survey, 18 (p. 92) Steel industry, 70, 82, 88 [5, 13], no, 129 Wage-price policy, 15, 82, 118, 161, 376 Wagner, Earl T., 320 Wagner, Robert F., Sr., 290, 300 Housing bill. See Taft-Ellender-Wag- ner housing bill Wagner Act, 3 15 [ 1 ] Wainwright, Gen. Jonathan M., 250 Congressional Medal of Honor, 157 Wake Island meeting with Gen. MacArthur, 345 [1] Walker, Paul, 49 [1] Wall Street Journal, 266 [3], 277 [5], 289 [10], 306 [2], 308 [1] Wallace, Henry A., 64 [3], 129 Wallgren, Mon C, 274 [1,3,5] Wallingford, Conn., campaign remarks, 292 [2] Walsh-Healey Act, 136 [12], 148 Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 135 War College, National, address, 354 War crimes, 292 [8], 312, 317 [7] Ward, Artemus, 249 Waring, Judge J. Waties, 26 [11], 35 [7] Warren, Gov. Earl, 242 [4], 277 [3, 6], 278, 279 Warren, Lindsay C, 177 Warrior River, barge transportation on, 18 (p. 83) Warrior River Lock and Dam, Ala., 367 (p. 1 143) Washington Campaign remarks, 272, 274-276 Candidates for public office, 272, 274-276 Economic progress, 274 [2], 276 Power projects, 62, 367 (p. 1146) Washington, D.C. See District of Colum- bia Washington, George, 5, 45, 136 [17], 174, 242 [6], 282 [7], 289, 296, 330 Washington Hebrew Congregation temple, remarks at cornerstone laying, 330 Washington Post, 75 [4] Washita River, 194 Water Power Act of 1920, Federal, 388 1331 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] Water resources development, 18 (pp. 87- 89), 194, 231, 367 (pp. 1146-1147) Agricultural, 367 (pp. 1149-1151) Desalination research program, approval of legislation, 199 Indian lands, 18 (p. 90) Legislative and budgetary policy, 367 (p. 1 147) Message to Congress, 388 Missouri, 3 Pollution, prevention, 292, [7] See also Floods, control and relief; River and harbor development Water Resources Policy Commission, 18 (p. 89), 32, 194, 367 (p. 1 147), 388 Waterloo, Iowa, campaign remarks, 315 [1] Watkins, Sen. Arthur V., 345 [1], 377 [11] Watkins, John A., 286 [1-3], 312, 321 [2], 349 n. Weapons. See Armaments Webb, James E., 21 [24] Webster, Daniel, 268 [4] Wedemeyer, Lt. Gen. Albert C, 270 [8], *11 l>L 303 [H> 308 [3], 3™> 3J6, 362 n. Weigle, Luther, A., 260 n. Weil, Frank L., 259, 297 Weizmann, Chaim, 144, 297 Welch, Repr., Phil J., 156 [1] Welfare Board, National Jewish, 297 Welfare programs, 18 (pp. 103-107), 292 [3L 293, 319 [3,4] Expenditures for, 231, 367 (pp. 1156- ri59) Handicapped persons, 18 (p. 106), 367 (p.1158) Indians, 18 (p. 106), 367 (p. 1158) Older persons, 218 Public assistance, 367 (p. 1156) Republican opposition, 292 [13] Special interest opposition, 194 Youth, 218 Welker, Sen. Herman, 129 Wenatchee, Wash., campaign remarks, 274 Werner, Mrs. Stella B., 308 [7] West Frankfort, 111., coal mine explosion, 18 (P-94)>*9 West Liberty, Iowa, campaign remarks, 315 [3] West Point, N.Y., Military Academy, 130, 131,142 West Virginia, 26 [ 19 ] Campaign remarks, 242 [2-6], 308 [1, 8] Candidates for public office, 242 [3-6], 308 [1, 8] Floods, control and relief, 50 Westerly, R.I., campaign remarks, 298 [5] Western Air Lines, 246 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 52 n. Westminster Presbyterian Church, Alexan- dria, Va., cornerstone laying, 337 Wetherby, Gov. Lawrence W., 221 [1] Wheat, 321 [4] Exports, 367 (p. 1 148) Pakistan, U.S. loan for, 252 Prices, 18 (p. 91), 210, 282 [8], 367 (P. 1 148) Production, 367 (p. 1148) Wheat Agreement, International, 18 (p. 91), 367^.1148-1149) Wheeler, Sen. Burton K., 143 Wheeling, W. Va., campaign remarks, 308 [1] Wheeling-Benwood, Ohio, 367 (p. 1146) Wherry, Sen. Kenneth S., 290 Whig Party, 238 [14], 282 [7], 287, 289 White, Charles M., 116 White, Robert M., 26 [9, 10, 18] White, Walter, 253 [5] White House Antique furnishings, restoration, 228 [1], 229 Gifts for, acceptance, 99, 171 n., 260 1332 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] White House — Continued Police, 134 n. Public visiting hours, 2 [2] Repairs to, 31 [4], 42, 98 [2], 168, 183, 236, 378 Whitefish, Mont., campaign remarks, 270 [5] Wholesale Price Index, 33 Wickard, Claude R., 266 [7] Wier, Repr. Roy W., 313 [5] Wilentz, David T., 303 [5] Wiley, Sen. Alexander, 129, 334 [1, 3] Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Campaign remarks, 306 [2] Mayor Luther M. Kniffen, 306 [2] Wilkinson, Ernest L., 281 Willamette River, 97 Willard, Dan, 311 [1] Willard, Ohio, campaign remarks, 311 [1] William Chrisman High School, Independ- ence, Mo., 173 Williams, Clair A., 315 [3, 4] Williams, Gov. G. Mennen, 317, 318 Williams, Jack, epitaph at Tombstone, Ariz., 98 [2], 123 [12] Williams, Sen. John J., 31 [17], 115 [21], "7 [7], 238 [2], 285 Williams, Ralph L., 282 [6-8] Williams, Walter, 98 [13] Williamsburg, U.S.S., 255 Williamsport, Pa., campaign remarks, 306 [5] Williston, N. Dak., campaign remarks, 266 [11] Wilkie, Wendell, 233 [15], 289 [8], 295 [6], 306 [1], 313 [4] Wilmington, Del., campaign remarks, 303 [1] Wilson, Charles E., 34, 58, 70, 88 [8], 115 [5] See also Defense Mobilization, Director (Charles E. Wilson) Wilson, Charles R., 289 n. Wilson, Edmund, 362 n. Wilson, T. Sgt. Harold E., Congressional Medal of Honor, 90 Wilson, Ray, 289 [4-6] Wilson, Woodrow, 21 [14], 63, 127 [18], i36 [17L J96> 285> 3°9> 366 Windsor Locks, Conn., campaign remarks, 292 [7] Wine, Capt. Russell B., 134 n. Winger, Albert E., 351 Winona, Minn., campaign remarks, 313 . [I]. Wisconsin, 241 Candidates for public office, 253 [10] Gov. Walter J. Kohler, Jr., 97 Primary elections, 247 [2] Wisconsin Power and Light Co., 143 Witherspoon, John, 337 Wolf Point, Mont., campaign remarks, 266 [13]. 268 [1] Women Armed Forces, role in, 248 Business and Professional, International Federation of, 188 "Women in the Armed Services" commemo- rative stamp, remarks upon issuance, 248 Wood, Junius B., 228 [1], 229 Woods, Rufus, 274 [2] Wooldridge, Rear Adm. E. T., 310 Wooton, Paul, 339 Worcester, Mass., campaign remarks, 292 [10] Work stoppages, 15 Workweek, 15, 376 World Health Organization, 51, 55 World War I, 307 Europe, financial drain on, 218 Intolerance in postwar era, 288, 290 World War II, 101, 158, 196, 307, 366, 378 Defense Housing units, disposition, 367 (p. 1 154) 1333 Index [ Main references are to items except as otherwise indicated ] World War II— Continued Defense — Continued Truman Committee investigations, 158, 289 [8],377 M Europe, financial drain on, 128, 368 Germany, disposition of confiscated prop- erty in U.S., 258 [5] Italy, Stevenson rehabilitation mission, 292 [1] Jewish sufferings in, 297 Medical care facilities for military per- sonnel, 333 Midway, Battle of, 142 Netherlands, resistance efforts, 78 Peace treaties, 5, 38, 79, 95, in, 342 [16] Postwar era Intolerance, 298 U.S. economy, 289 [2], 292 [10], 293, 294> 310- [1] Stevenson, Gov. Adlai, services to Govern- ment, 289 [5], 292 [1, 2], 317 [4] Veterans benefits, reduction in expendi- tures for, 367 (pp. 1160-1161) Wright, Louis T., 290 n. Wright brothers, 125, 328, 351 Wright Memorial Dinner, Aero Club of Washington, 351 Wright Memorial Trophy, 351 n. Wrong, H. H., 23 n. Yakima power project, 367 (p. 1146) Yelle, Cliff e, 274 [1] Yonkers, N.Y., campaign remarks, 289 [11] Young, Brigham, 280 [ 1 ] Young, John R., 3 1 [2], 88 [8] Young, Sen. Milton R., 32 Young American Medals, presentation, 181 Young Men's Christian Association and Government Assembly, remarks, 184 Youth Apprentice training programs, 367 (p. 1150) Civic responsibilities, 220, 286 [6], 289 [1, 10] Crusade for Christian Citizenship, 39 Labor standards, 18 (p. 95) Political appeal of General Eisenhower, 289 [10] Scholastic press, address to representatives of, 63 Welfare programs, 218 Yugoslavia Assistance, 18 (p. 75), 27, 55 Communist aggression in, 107 [2] Tito, Josip Broz, 107 [14] Zarubin, Gen. Georgi N., 166 [18] Zenkl, Dr. Petr, 309 Zimmerman, John W., 303 [5] Zionist movement, campaign to suppress in Soviet Union, 377 [28] Zolkiewicz, Thaddeus S., 43 n. 1334 DATE DUE SEP2SH i ^ G0VT.6S 4. H3:952-53/c.2 united States. President (1945-1953 : Truman) Public papers. GOVT.GS 4.113:952-53/c.2 United States. President, (1945-1953 : Truman) Public papers.